LÖVE

darkfrei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 9:47 am You are right, don't forget to add the wished license to your promt:

Yeah, please do not use CC licenses for your code. Read why it is not suitable:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/qu ... d-for-code

and also:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/

Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?

We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

You can also use this handy tool (once "software" is selected you will see all CC licenses are removed):
https://ufal.github.io/public-license-selector/

dusoft wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 10:14 am

darkfrei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 9:47 am You are right, don't forget to add the wished license to your promt:

Yeah, please do not use CC licenses for your code. Read why it is not suitable:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/qu ... d-for-code

and also:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/

Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?

We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

You can also use this handy tool (once "software" is selected you will see all CC licenses are removed):
https://ufal.github.io/public-license-selector/

Why not?

first link wrote:Our licenses are currently not compatible with the GPL, though the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry. We are looking into compatibility of BY-SA with GPL in the future; see the license compatibility page for more information.)

darkfrei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 2:30 pm Why not?

I pasted the link to the FAQ item that explains it. Those are five paragraphs that are easy to read and comprehend.

Re CC0 - it still does not grant maximum possible rights to the author and is not considered open source license.

But we are now completely off topic, so I am out. Feel free to open this topic in a separate thread, others might chime in.

darkfrei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 9:47 am
perfect solution!

Your cannot claim copyright or apply a license of your choosing over AI generated content. You have no legal grounding in doing so.

ivan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 5:02 pm

darkfrei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 9:47 am
perfect solution!

Your cannot claim copyright or apply a license of your choosing over AI generated content. You have no legal grounding in doing so.

But I can use any content under free license, I can trust that this content has given license.

But you can not trust the license of chatGPT content. All its 'created' content is remixed from unknown sources witht unknown licenses.

knorke wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:43 pm But you can not trust the license of chatGPT content. All its 'created' content is remixed from unknown sources witht unknown licenses.

Aren't people do same thing?

GVovkiv wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:03 pm

knorke wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:43 pm But you can not trust the license of chatGPT content. All its 'created' content is remixed from unknown sources witht unknown licenses.

Aren't people do same thing?

Yes, but:
1. Even that has limitations under laws of countries (e.g. for fan created content of IP people don't, the US has fair use laws while japan doesn't, but the latter has other avenues),
2. If it is legal, then people feel like humans needed to make "an effort" to do things compared to the cheap implementation/interpretation of what the AI barfed out... and it's true; without touch-ups, AI genned content can be as bad as a talentless human creating something. (see: AI music covers; only a few out of all are what i'd call decent)

zorg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:24 am Yes, but:
1. Even that has limitations under laws of countries (e.g. for fan created content of IP people don't, the US has fair use laws while japan doesn't, but the latter has other avenues),
2. If it is legal, then people feel like humans needed to make "an effort" to do things compared to the cheap implementation/interpretation of what the AI barfed out... and it's true; without touch-ups, AI genned content can be as bad as a talentless human creating something. (see: AI music covers; only a few out of all are what i'd call decent)

It's just feels kinda... unfair?
I more then enough sure, that almost everyone here uses some libraries that listed here: https://github.com/love2d-community/awesome-love2d
And I more then enough sure, that even 50% of them (meaning, libraries authors) never mention origins of their: formulas, ideas, code snippets, etc or do it only partially. And nobody really questions that some parts of said code might be copy-paste or copy-paste with some remixing (like, formatting code snippets to fit library code) like this AI do (?).
If people here sees new library they don't automatically assume that it is just remix of another library or code snippets from StackOverflow without attributions to source, but rather original stuff or at least "safe to use" in legal terms.
While if someone would post code snippets from something like ChatGPT, it's automatically "we don't know where it's source comes from".

If you put a license in your GitHub repository people will trust that you have the rights over the provided source code. Moreover the license file points to the individual/entity who is responsible in the event that there are disputes regarding the origin of the code.
This is a question about responsibility and providing attribution to the original authors. The way that ChatGPT "remixes" content without specifying its sources is scummy. OpenAI are trying to get away with it because they have a lot of funding and lawyers.