[License-discuss] [SUBMISSION] AI-MIT License 1.0 — permissive license for AI-generated code

[Andrew Katz]

Hi Bruce


> On 17 Mar 2026, at 19:38, Bruce Perens via License-discuss <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> 
> This is why I started deprecating Open Hardware licenses. Schematics are not currently copyrightable, and what if they were? Perhaps Horowitz and Hill's "Art of Electronics" textbook would be collecting royalties from every electronic product worldwide. 
> 
> Bruce Perens K6BP
> 

You raise a very good point, and I have a few observations:

1. (Not surprisingly) this list has a bias towards US copyright law, but it’s worth pointing out that the scope of copyrightability (and similar IP rights) varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, computer-generated works are explicitly given copyright protection (s9(3) CDPA 1988 as amended [1]). We also have database right (as they do in the EU). Since open source licences are used worldwide, it’s sensible to take a global view where possible. 

2. So far as schematics are concerned, they could *potentially*, if complex enough, be regarded as a database of the nodes (although I admit it’s difficult to see how this does square with some of the requirements for database right protection in the UK and EU), but, if hand-drawn, they would almost certainly under UK law, be regarded as an artistic work, and they could, therefore, if machine generated, be regarded as a computer generated work. (Of course, it may be possible to remove the expressive element from the schematics, but there’s currently quite a lot of tension in UK copyright law around the idea/expression distinction. This partially arises from a difficulty in reconciling s9(3) and EU copyright law which requires that the work is the “author’s own intellectual creation” [2]. EU Copyright law still underpins UK copyright law, despite the fiasco of Brexit.

This was a major concern when we drafted the CERN OHL because we didn’t want the licence to be seen as trying to exert any control over the use of non-copyright (or other wise non-IP-affected) materials. As it happens, I think we could be more explicit about this point in the FAQs and rationale applicable to the CERN-OHL, and I may propose some amendments accordingly. (On re-reading, I spotted one assumption we made about enforcement of GPL by copyright holders only,  which may not be universally correct any more, so that needs addressing). 

3. I’m deeply concerned (and I think this echoes your concerns) that acting as if IP rights exist, when they don’t, can be dangerous. After a while, the courts (and even legislators) can rely on this “custom and practice” to justify the creation of intellectual property rights out of thin air, or to codify rights which never existed in the first place. (We’ve seen this happen to TV formats, for example). I have also seen some attempts by people and organisations to establish a copyright norm which would beneficial to them by publishing papers making certain assumptions. I therefore think that we should be extremely wary of setting licensing norms around AI-generated code, when the underlying ip rights themselves lack clarity.

Best


Andrew

Andrew Katz


[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infopaq_International_A/S_v_Danske_Dagblades_Forening


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260318/38242d5f/attachment.htm>