On copyright/licensing:

I don't think parts of GHC potentially becoming public domain would be an issue for the project itself.

As for copyright, what feels like a long time ago I listed it as one of the reasons for declaring AI tooling use.
Even if in practice I don't see a realistic process to check if some AI generated part violates copyright.

But our contribution guidelines already state:

> Licensing: make sure you are familiar with GHC's Licensing. Unless you say otherwise, we will assume that if you submit a contribution to GHC, then you intend to supply it to us under the same license as the existing code. However, we do not ask for copyright attribution; you retain copyright on any contributions you make, so feel free to add your copyright to the top of any file in which you make non-trivial changes.

See also: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/licensing

This definitely doesn't protect the individual contributor, but it's their choice to use such tools. 
It's impossible to answer if this is enough to avoid maintainers being held responsible for copyright violations others contributed to GHC,
but I would hope it would help.

From a maintainer perspective I think it's more likely that someone carelessly commits license violation by copying code from another project
rather than through LLM generation. So while worth thinking about, I think from a maintainer perspective we don't need special treatment on
this in the AI policy.

But given it's current length, perhaps adding one line that contributors are responsible for generated code being compatible with GHCs license 
would be sensible.

Andreas

On 07/15/2026 6:20 PM CEST Julian Ospald via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:
[...]
All that matters is that I affirm: **I own the code, intellectually and legally. [...]

As a side note, has the legal portion of this been thought through? At least here in the US, it appears to be far from settled case law that you won't, for example, be infringing copyright if an LLM generates code very similar to existing code that's under a different license, even if the person using the LLM has no knowledge of the similarity.

It also appears to be the case (at least in the US) that an author can't say "I own the code, intellectually and legally" if they've generated code with an LLM and left it unmodified: Thaler v. Perlmutter (a lower-court case) held that all copyrightable works must "be authored by a human being." So, bits of GHC may now be public domain rather than under GHC's licence.

Tom
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org