alt Hacker NewsThe submitted code must adhere to either of (a), (b), (c), and separately a (d) clause of: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#dev...
If submitter picks (a) they assert that they wrote the code themselves and have right to submit it under project's license. If (b) the code was taken from another place with clear license terms compatible with the project's license. If (c) contribution was written by someone else who asserted (a) or (b) and is submitted without changes.
Since LLM generated output is based on public code, but lacks attribution and the license of the original it is not possible to pick (b). (a) and (c) cannot be picked based on the submitter disclaimer in the PR body.
Replies
If there's a "the original" the LLM is copying then there's a problem.
If there isn't, then (b) works fine, the code is taken from the LLM with no preexisting license. And it would be very strange if a mix of (a) and (b) is a problem; almost any (b) code will need some (a) code to adapt it.
To many, it qualifies under either A or B, and therefore C as well. Under A, you can think of the LLM as augmenting your own intelligence. Under B, the license terms of LLM output are essentially that you can do whatever you want with it. The alternative is avoiding use of AI because of copyright or plagiarism concerns.
It would be considered (a) since the author would own the copyright on the code.
Not sure if you are intentionally misrepresenting (a), but here is the full text
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or