The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models • Hacker News Board

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#21

Post by patrick91 » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:13 PM UTC

euazOn wrote: post #9

simgt wrote: post #7

What triggers me is how insistant Claude Code is on adding "co-authored by Claude" in commits, in spite of my settings and an instruction in CLAUDE.md. I wish all these tech bros were as willing to credit the human shoulders on which their products are built. But they'd be much less successful in our current system if they were that kind of people.

Try changing the system prompt or switch to opencode [0] - they allegedly reverse engineered Claude Code, and so the performance you get with Claude models should be very similar to Claude Code. [0] https://github.com/sst/opencode

there's an option for claude to disable co-authoring, see: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings

{ "includeCoAuthoredBy": false }

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#22

Post by cdelsolar » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

I disagree as someone who has also spent a huge amount of time on open source software. It’s all GPL or AGPL :)

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#23

Post by amenhotep » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

It's not dictating how you use what you build? It's dictating how you redistribute what you build on top of other people's work.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#24

Post by twoodfin » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #6

The article goes deep into these two cases deemed most relevant but really there are a wide swath of similar cases all focused around defining sharper borders than ever around what is essentially the question "exactly when does it become copyright violation" with plenty of seemingly "obvious" answers which quickly conflict with each other. I also have the feeling it will be much like Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc…

Ideally, Congress would just settle this basket of copyright concerns, as they explicitly have the power to do—and have done so repeatedly in the specific context of computers and software.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#25

Post by phplovesong » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:16 PM UTC

We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#26

Post by dmezzetti » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:17 PM UTC

amenhotep wrote: post #23

dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

It's not dictating how you use what you build? It's dictating how you redistribute what you build on top of other people's work.

Ok but I just have no interest in imposing restrictions on how people distribute what I build in such a manner either. That's just me.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#27

Post by maxloh » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:17 PM UTC

ljlolel wrote: post #16

And then also to all code made from the GPL’d ai model?

A program's output is likely not owned by the program's authors. For example, if you create a document with Microsoft Word, you are the one who owns it, not Microsoft.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#28

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:18 PM UTC

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #14

pclmulqdq wrote: post #5

I thought the whole concept of a viral license was legally questionable to begin with. There haven't been cases about this, as far as I know, and GPL virality enforcement has just been done by the community.

There have been a number of of cases, which are linked from Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg... ) - most recently Entr’Ouvert v. Orange had a strong judgement (under French law) in favour of the GPL. Conversely, to my knowledge there has been no court decision that indicates that the GPL is _not_ enforceable. I think you might want to be more familiar with the area before you d…

I'm not suggesting that you avoid following it. I'm just not that convinced it's enforceable in the US. The French ruling is good, though.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#29

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

omnicognate wrote: post #8

pclmulqdq wrote: post #5

I thought the whole concept of a viral license was legally questionable to begin with. There haven't been cases about this, as far as I know, and GPL virality enforcement has just been done by the community.

The GPL was tested in court as early as 2006 [1] and plenty of times since. There are no serious doubts about its enforceability. [1] https://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

That case has little to do with the license itself and nothing to do with its virality.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#30

Post by dmezzetti » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

cdelsolar wrote: post #22

dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

I disagree as someone who has also spent a huge amount of time on open source software. It’s all GPL or AGPL :)

That's your prerogative. It's just not for me and GPL is basically something I avoid when possible.