That’s not entirely true, it doesn’t make it FOSS.
Vibe coders sign a contract when they use AI to generate stuff, which gives rights away to the company. Regardless of copyright protections from the state, a contract is in most cases legally binding.
Copyright law requires human authorship as opposed to random generation. This doesn’t inherently exclude all generative works, algorithms that were carefully crafted and datasets curated can potentially have their results considered “authored” but the AI Company owners that made them.
In order to make it true we need to pass laws that regulate the AI companies and their slop. In the meantime, I recommend nobody uses slop code. Actually, I’d recommend that regardless of ownership rights.
Anything built by AI/LLMs should be FOSS by law. Oh I dream of the day.
Your wish is granted.
But you can only view the source code through an LLM
a finger on the monkey paw curls
What a vibe
Hitachi Vibe!
It already is, vibe coders cannot hold copyright on AI-generated code
Not to be pedantic, not holding copyright ≠ FOSS.
FOSS explicitly means that the developer has a copyright and is explicitly giving a license for people to use it with FOSS provisions.
It would be more accurate to say AI Vibe code is in the public domain.
Public domain code is a subset of FOSS code, so I don’t think that was inaccurate
In general terms, it isn’t really. Or at least it is a controversial topic still subject to discussion.
https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
As to this specific topic, the fact that all of the code has to be open source is part of the 10 criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
As such, you can’t consider open source the public domain portions of a codebase that also has proprietary portions.
That’s not entirely true, it doesn’t make it FOSS.
Vibe coders sign a contract when they use AI to generate stuff, which gives rights away to the company. Regardless of copyright protections from the state, a contract is in most cases legally binding.
Copyright law requires human authorship as opposed to random generation. This doesn’t inherently exclude all generative works, algorithms that were carefully crafted and datasets curated can potentially have their results considered “authored” but the AI Company owners that made them.
In order to make it true we need to pass laws that regulate the AI companies and their slop. In the meantime, I recommend nobody uses slop code. Actually, I’d recommend that regardless of ownership rights.
I signed no contracts to download the open source local models I use for code generation, just for what it’s worth