Qt is native for many Linux mobile devices e.g. Ubuntu Touch and in some cases nearly the only option, high level overview, what do I need to do to integrate something like cxx-qt and Qt with like wgpu or glow or something GPU? I know QShader exists, a bit less capability than I want but good, but I can't find that API in this and the next that does have it is 2 years old, there are no Rust examples of this type of GPU thing with non-QShaders on GitHub, I checked, would raw-window-handle help? I have Linux desktop which has essentially the same API for Qt, any general tips or guides to use?
Actually, GTK is the other option and supports about as much without licensing fees possible and winit-gtk exists so this question is not needed and I can just use GTK, sorry to bother you. X E.
Well regardless, GTK with even winit is old, need help with high level what I must do for latest stuff, or should I use the old winit?
Actually, tao has GTK support and wgpu examples, good enough probably. X E.
Looks like tao requires Wayland or X11 anyway, Qt has better old support so back to how to integrate Qt with a graphics GPU thing. X E.
May as well forget it, just me and my old devices that don't support Wayland or X11, Ubuntu Touch 16.04, and an old SailfishOS ROM, from what I hear, just too old, more modern devices will support stuff like Wayland or X11, most if not all modern ones, this thread is useless at this point, sorry. X E.
But wait, I have recently been doing experiments with Rust and WGPU on Raspberry Pi and Jetson Nano with no Wayland or X11. With success.
Sadly I cannot describe how very well as my AI friend wrote the code and got it to work. I know it relies on Linux KMS and either GL or Vulkan depending on platform.
Maybe your AI friend could help you...
Maybe you can go the "web" way and just use a framework that compiles to wasm and runs on a webpage so it can run on any device?
This is just rust compiled to wasm and everything is triangles (shaders), not just the big one.
Yeah, it seems Grok made a Qt integration with wgpu, but I can't copyright that and was going to use it in a game, it is possible sure, but not like I know how to do it. Also, most to all modern stuff can run Wayland or X11, I just had really old hardware. X E.
Could I possibly use Linux DRM because it is all Linux? I think so and the basic templates Grok on X shows, that seems like Qt but free, 90% support and like just rare stuff or desktop unsupported. I guess this is my path but harder. AI is good as a research tool but not for the code unless you are okay not copyrighting it. X E.
Who says you cannot copyright AI generate code?
Let's say you write a specification for what you want to create. Including some detail of how it should be done, the language to use, the libraries to use, its API etc. That is your creation, you have copyright of it by default.
Then you can:
a) Hire a software engineer to turn that specification into working code.
b) Hire an AI, you pay monthly right, to turn that specification into working code.
What is going to happen? Typically the same thing, they will both try and get the job done using whatever they have learned from the net, likely cutting and pasting code from wherever and rearranging it into a solution.
What is the result? That code is now a derived work of your original, copyrighted, specification. Why would you not have copyright in either case.
I have read that "a prompt" is not enough to deserve copyright. But note, we did not just prompt here. We wrote a specification. A document we do have copyright of.
because that is not how copright works at all ? having copyright over a work does not grant you any right over derived works.
the only right you gain from your copyright is to potentially claim copyright infrigement. proving copyright infrigement still does not grant you any right over the infriging material, it only limits the rights of the owner of the derivd works (which is not you), and potentially allows you to get compensation for damages said infrigement may have caused.
on the other hand having an employee work for you may grant you copyright over the work they produce while working for you if that is part of their contract, which is usually the case, and is how companies have been getting copyright over code since forever.
wether you can get copyright over the code generated by an AI that you guided is a completely different matter : the AI is not a person, does not have copyright over anything, and thus cannot give that copyright to you.
what you need to prove then is that the copyright should be yours, because you created the code, and the AI was simply a tool that you used and was not responsible for creating the expressive parts of the work.
for more, i advise you look at this document, which expresses the point in much finer details.
tl,dr: employee are peoplee, they have copyright over what they create, and sell you their copyright for money. AIs are not people and have no right, you can only have copyright over their output if you can show that it is your creative work.
The short version is that I got it directly from the copyright office, any AI code is excluded from copyright, but hey, using AI as a research tool is awesome, like what documents I need to read to know how to do this, regardless, the Grok AI code is so short that I can probably just look up the documentation for Linux direct rendering management (DRM), I know how to do it mostly now, thanks and definitely solved. X E.
Wait what? I can get copyright over AI content? As far as I know, Grok (or Claude) has whatever copyright if any assigned to users, advice on this? Should I do like keep the file that was AI generated and just add to it?
the law is complicated. copyright law is extra complicated.
an AI generated work is not copyrightable, but if you use AI as a tool to make your own creative work, then you can copyright that work.
the line is blurry, like everything in copyright law, and will never not be. i encourage you to again look at the report by the united states copyright office which i linked above
I presume it does if the work is derived from by own work. Which I automatically have copyright of. As I described above.
True. In that case I will say the AI is a tool that I am using, and I bear full responsibility. Without the tool what would I do? I'd scrape the web to find out what I need to know then use that to create what I want. How does me using the AI tool change anything?
And that is exactly the reason I talked about starting from the specification. That is my creative work, I wrote it. I have copyright by default. The tool just rendered that as working code. Code derived from my copyrighted spec.
I have read such reports on copyright and AI. Like all such IP law it's a big wobbly mess that is not really decided until it comes to court. And don't agree with much of it anyway so people should discuss what it is and where they would like it to be.