LÖVE

ivan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:34 am No, it doesn't work that way.
You can't just claim: "my code was produced by ChatGPT" or "this snippet of code is from a search result on Google".
You have to reference the original author and check the associated source code license.

it works, look at it, is there on the repository: https://codeberg.org/glitchapp/fish-fil ... luenZx.lua

The problem is that your repository claims to be licensed under the GNU General Public License, but the ChatGPT code comes from unknown sources which may be licensed under different terms.
You can't put another license over the source code produced by ChatGPT.

ivan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:52 am The problem is that your repository claims to be licensed under the GNU General Public License, but the ChatGPT code comes from unknown sources which may be licensed under different terms.
You can't put another license over the source code produced by ChatGPT.

The whole software is not GPL, there are external libraries that have other different licenses, for instance the moonvox library (which I'm not really using in the game yet anyway) has the MIT license (https://codeberg.org/glitchapp/fish-fil ... ib/moonvox).

There are a lot of libraries used in the game and although all are open source there are a few with slighly different licenses (https://codeberg.org/glitchapp/fish-fil ... h/main/lib)

So basically the game is open source and the license is GPL with a few different exceptions on the libraries.

I do not consider those 19 lines of code to be significant or special at all, If I would claim I wrote it myself nobody would notice, but there's no need to.

This is a good try, but you have to include all associated licenses at the start, not just GNU/GPL:
https://codeberg.org/glitchapp/fish-fil ... ranch/main

Also, the part generated by ChatGPT cannot be licensed because we do not know the original source or license.

ivan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:04 am This is a good try, but you have to include all associated licenses at the start, not just GNU/GPL:
https://codeberg.org/glitchapp/fish-fil ... ranch/main

The libraries do not even need to be in the game, they should be referenced from their own repositories but I'm not sure how to do that with git.
GPL is what I wrote, what I did not write and use (the libraries) belongs to their own authors and have their own license (and repository). I could write that in the repository but it seems to obvious to me.

ivan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:04 am Also, the part generated by ChatGPT cannot be licensed because we do not know the original source or license.

At this point I don't think we will agree that the code is meaningless and that I could write a similar one myself and write that I'm the author, so I think it's pointless to keep discussing that part, we do not agree, that's fine.

glitchapp wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:14 am GPL is what I wrote, what I did not write and use (the libraries) belongs to their own authors and have their own license (and repository). I could write that in the repository but it seems to obvious to me.

Yes, make sure that you specify that because it is not obvious at all.

glitchapp wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:14 am At this point I don't think we will agree that the code is meaningless and that I could write a similar one myself and write that I'm the author, so I think it's pointless to keep discussing that part, we do not agree, that's fine.

The problem is that we do not know how or where ChatGPT acquired the source code.
We know that ChatGPT didn't come up with the code entirely on its own.
Moreover, the AI is not able to grant permission (it is not a legal entity) allowing you to reuse its answers in such way.
For all we know the original code may be copyrighted so it is not right to use it unless you are 100% sure.

ivan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:27 am

glitchapp wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:14 am GPL is what I wrote, what I did not write and use (the libraries) belongs to their own authors and have their own license (and repository). I could write that in the repository but it seems to obvious to me.

Yes, make sure that you specify that because it is not obvious at all.

glitchapp wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:14 am At this point I don't think we will agree that the code is meaningless and that I could write a similar one myself and write that I'm the author, so I think it's pointless to keep discussing that part, we do not agree, that's fine.

The problem is that we do not know how or where ChatGPT acquired the source code.
We know that ChatGPT didn't come up with the code entirely on its own.
Moreover, the AI is not able to grant permission (it is not a legal entity) allowing you to reuse its answers in such way.
For all we know the original code may be copyrighted so it is not right to use it unless you are 100% sure.

It is already specified, I updated the Readme.

ivan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:05 pm

tourgen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:16 pm it doesn't matter what any of us think about what is legal or how these systems work. no one with real power making these decisions is going to care

Yes, it matters and people care about each other's rights and privacy.
Once the large corporations figure out how to use AI in order to exploit regular folks like you and me then you will probably reconsider your opinion.
We should be concerned with ChatGPT especially when there are doubts with regards to its lawfulness.
Chatbots have been around for a very long time, so you are quite late to the party.

No, they will not care. That is my point. They will do as they see fit and we have no real power to stop that.

GVovkiv wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:18 pm

tourgen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:16 pm it doesn't matter what any of us think about what is legal or how these systems work. no one with real power making these decisions is going to care. they will write the laws as they see fit.

I mean, this is General, why not discuss?

alright. good point. I think that any system that creates a synthesis of published works is fine and should be allowed. If you do not want people or machines learning from your work, do not publish.

we have no real power to stop that

Sure, we have the power to decide what technology to use.

I think that any system that creates a synthesis of published works is fine and should be allowed. If you do not want people or machines learning from your work, do not publish

Just because something is accessible on the internet doesn't give you the right to copy it or modify it as you wish.