this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
241 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
27941 readers
238 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is it though? There is no law that says that, so its just an interpretation of someone. I argue Ai generated code CAN be public domain if it does not contain any licensed code. Therefore we cannot assume the code being public domain without checking.
It is.
https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#More-Information
Edit: since apparently no one actually follows this link, this is a link to a series of quotes that come directly from the United States Copyright Office that specifically apply to the question of whether AI generated code can be copyrighted. This is not an opinion piece, it is a series of direct quotes, which I share below.
(All from this document from the US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf)
This is just an interpretation of one organization, not an universal law.
Ai is trained on different licensed code. It does not automatically become public domain just because the Ai processes it. There is also no guarantee that the output is free of licensed code that already exists.
It is the interpretation of the Judicial Branch of the United States government and the United States Copyright Office, the best authority on copyright law in the United States.
But yes, much like every single other law in existence, it’s not universal. (I mean, unless we’re also talking about the laws of physics.)
And yes, if the AI generated code is a copy of copyrighted code, then it would still be copyrighted, but that’s an even worse problem for Codeberg than it being public domain.
The quoted laws do not say that generated code is automatically public domain, that is an interpretation of the law by some organization (here ScieActive). The laws just say, that a person using a prompt cannot take ownership and copyright of the generated code. It does not state it becomes public domain for everyone. Besides that, this is only in the US, not universal. And its not even tested in court yet. Its like saying in Brazil (or the EU in example) exist a law that does not allow Ai, therefore its the law for everyone. This is not universal.
The quotes are not laws, and those quotes are from the Copyright Office’s official statement on AI generated material. Please, just click the link at the bottom of my earlier comment. Here, I’ll even link it again:
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
If something cannot be copyrighted, it is in the public domain.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s not international law. If I don’t want to follow your open source license requirements, and your project is public domain in the US, I’ll just copy it in the US, and you can’t sue me.
Ok, I’ve editing my earlier comment to explain what I’m linking there, since it seems that neither you nor anyone else bothered to click that link.
Codeberg is based in Germany where German copyright law applies, and German copyright law is quite different from USA copyright law.
They still need to consider all copyright laws, and something being considered public domain in the US is a pretty big deal with regard to open source licensing. For example, if code is in the public domain, and is “released” under the AGPL, I don’t actually have to follow the terms of the AGPL when I use it.