OP (see uphtread) has misunderstood this (year old) Court ruling quite a bit.
It's ok—we all make mistakes. The important task now is to correct the mistake.
I encourage boosting of this reply to address & draw attention boost to the prior error.
I assure you #copyleft (& software itself) *are not* seriously impacted by this ruling, and #SFC remains constantly vigilant on these matters.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/mar/04/scotus-deny-cert-dc-circuit-thaler-appeal-llm-ai/
IANAL but AFAIK @soller isn't either.
Cc: @downey
#LLM #AI #legal #Court #GPL #LGPL
You're speculating on the reasons #SCOTUS denied cert. There is nothing in their denial that supports your argument.
The big picture stakes are high (of course). Focusing on a year-old case as if it actually tells us something new merely because SCOTUS denied cert is just a mechanism for spreading FUD.
Here's a full analysis of the entire DC Circuit Ruling:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/mar/04/scotus-deny-cert-dc-circuit-thaler-appeal-llm-ai/
Cc: @downey
@bkuhn @soller @downey I am not speculating on what they said.
They said why they refused to hear the case. Plain.
You're speculating on case specifics. The supreme court refused to hear a case based on the principle that copyright only applies to human expression.
If copyright is human expression...
Copyright licensing is in question.
I'll wait to see if someone takes someone to court and that isn't pointed out. What i wrote stands. It's a question.
Big enough to give pause.
Someone is misinforming you about what's going on here, as what you're saying is factually wrong.
NO the SCOTUS didn't refuse to hear a case based on the principle that copyright only applies to human expression. That's not even what the lower court said, so the Supreme Court wouldn't have refused based on that in the first place, even if they were going to give an explanation.
Copyright is not human expression. That's not what the courts say, and that's not what the law says.
This case is about regulatory process in context of statutory implementation of constitutional authority.
Here's what the Supreme Court actually said, directly from them. It's at the top of page 3. And it's nothing. They simply weren't interested in the case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030226zor_2d8f.pdf
@volkris @soller @downey yeah.
So. One guy blocked me. Cool.
Reuters and others. Ok.
What I am getting here is that you guys have made up your minds, because of whatever reasons. That's kind of like calling things 'fake news' to me.
The responses you have should take on those sources.
So here's is the obvious compromise you should have come to by now
Fork the vibe changes. Just in case. A sage and safe approach.
I honestly don't understand what you mean with that.
What do you mean by fork the changes?
@volkris @bkuhn @soller @downey Then the news agencies misinformed.
Which are listed on the link I posted.
That, apparently, none of the people here actually read because of cognitive bias.
So.
Continue sermonizing. You haven't convinced me.
You do that by dealing with the articles in the link. Right at the bottom. Footnotes.
Until then, save your keyboards.