Perhaps the author intended further additions, perhaps transforming the output to apply filters or add spurious superlatives for humour value (“Great work on line 420, User6942!”).
The current Reuters headline is "US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator". That's still kind of clickbaity, but far more accurate and correct than the link I see here on HN.
This whole case has been a dumb waste of time for anyone but scurrilous headline writers.
The plaintiff insisted on filling out the copyright app with their "creation" in the author field. Every legal opinion since has had to start assuming that's true, making "no copyright for you" legally obvious. The plaintiff apparently tried to walk that back on appeal, to argue he authored the work using the software. There's a paragraph right near the beginning where the court points out it simply doesn't consider that argument, since it wasn't brought up to the Copyright Office, back when the plaintiff was insisting on the opposite.
There was nothing to nail down here. The Copyright Office rejected the registration. The Review Board affirmed. The trial court affirmed. Three appeals court judges affirmed. No dissenting opinion.
I would love to see HN adopt a policy of replacing links to news pieces about court opinions that don't link them with links to better news pieces that do.
Helpful analysis that provides additional context can exist, eg. SCOTUSBlog that provides useful summaries while reliably linking to the rulings themselves. It's not all sensationalist trash.
> In thinking about our own law, most people would acknowledge the existence of literary and rhetorical features but these are generally considered irrelevant to the true work of law, and in many cases are judged to conflict with that work.
I found this unsupported assertion surprising.
I haven't watched many legal dramas, but my secondhand impression of both TV and film is that they tend to make the US legal system seem a lot more dramatic, and a lot less procedural, than it really is.
Professors and visiting lawyers explicitly acknowledge narrative building as a skill throughout my time in law school.
No well-known permissive open software license includes any promise to do future development, much less to make it available under the same license terms. A key draw of permissive licensing is that anyone can fork and put new work under new and different terms.
Who would promise perpetual maintenance for nothing? What organization would sign up to be the only one that can't change terms for improvements?
I don't think "social contract" makes sense here. There's no sovereign power involved. In the sense used, "social contract" essentially means "not in the contract"---as in not in the terms. It's a back door for saying things that were never put down ought to be treated like they were in the license file, just because one side really wants them and doesn't want to DIY or pay for them.
If there are disappointed expectations, that's another thing. But being even very disappointed, and being able to find other like-minded people who would prefer no disruption and new freebies forever, doesn't make unfounded expectations enforceable, nor should it.
I'd be extremely careful speaking of any singular "community". And of assuming that everyone in it expected Redis or another similar project to work just like Linux or other exceptional projects. Most devs dealing with open source have a project relicense---among many others than simply grind to a halt---at some point in their career. For some devs, Redis may have been the first. Others "adopted" Redis knowing the risk and accepting it.
