Two trends to watch in coming months/years:
1. Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects. Their legal team will advise them that trade secrets are the only way to protect LLM-generated code.
2. Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs.
These are already the most common reactions to the current legal status of LLM-generated works. If it is "uncopyrightable" and goes into the Public Domain or equivalent, then the F/OSS ideology will be considered untenable, except where software is exclusively written by hand.
This is one major reason that Codeberg, Linux, and other projects have said "no AI contributions or repos", because there is no value in being a Public-Domain-Dumping-Ground. If there is no copyright to assign, sublicense, or transfer, then there is no value in the content to any hosting service.
> Linux […] said "no AI contributions or repos"
On the contrary: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8T...
This is an excellent point. OSS licenses only work because of copyright. The intention was to kind of "judo" copyright law to benefit sharing. If the work is uncopyrightable, no license of any sort applies to it.
Before I started running with the OSS crowd, I wanted to put my code in the public domain. I quickly learned that isn't a thing with US copyright law. Any time you create a new work (of the sort that isn't specifically excluded from copyright) it is immediately and automatically copyrighted by you in that instant. If you don't want it to be, tough. It's copyrighted. The best you could do was apply a permissive license.
But now, perhaps there's a workaround for those who really want to be something they made in the public domain: claim it was machine generated. There's an interesting thought...