Live data from Hacker News

The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

alex000kim.com

531–540 of 636 posts

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confused, AI can't itself hold copyright, but the human who triggered the AI to write the code holds the copyright instead.

No the human cannot hold the copyright also. They can own the property rights to the code and protect it. It's not like the rule is "AI cannot copyright stuff but humans can" but rather code is rarely copyrighted and in its case, ownership is much more important. If your code was generated by you and you store it in your system and have property rights over it, you can enforce legal actions even without holding a cop…

You can definitely copyright code. I think the English term "copyright" is a bit misleading. In German it is "Urheberrecht" (= author's right), which I think is much clearer.

If you author something, you have the sole copyright. In fact, in Germany you can't even waive your copyright away. However, you can grant licenses for the use of your work.

The difference between copyright and licenses is crucial! By licensing your work, you do not waive your copyright. You still remain the owner. If you publish your code under the GPL and you are the sole author, you can always relicense your code or issue commercial licenses under different terms.

> In general, it is kind of weird to want to copyright code. How do you patent a for-loop for example

There is a fundamental difference between copyright and patents! Patents require a novel technical contribution and they must be granted by a patent office.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#532
post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this apply to their internal use as well? They can really only claim DMCA status on the leaked code if it was authored by humans. Claude attribution in their internal git history would make a strong case that they do not in fact own the copyright to Claude Code itself and are therefore abusing the DMCA system to protect leaked trade secrets rather than protect copyright.

Genuine question: why can they only claim DMCA if the code is written by humans? Does DMCA specify the method of production?

According to the US Copyright Office, fully AI-generated works aren’t eligible for copyright because they don’t have human authors. They’re in the public domain by default.

See: https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2026/02/06/artificial...

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#533
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem at all in the EU, as the user would either would need to review and redact the output or would need to put a transparency note up by law [0]. I am sure that Anthropic with their high ethical standards will educate their users ... [0] https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-5...

Since when is code considered > which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest From your link, that's the only case where text needs to be attributed to AI.

Code may not be, but opening a Merge Request undercover may be unlawful:

> Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#535
post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: why can they only claim DMCA if the code is written by humans? Does DMCA specify the method of production?

According to the US Copyright Office, fully AI-generated works aren’t eligible for copyright because they don’t have human authors. They’re in the public domain by default. See: https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2026/02/06/artificial...

What constitutes "fully AI-generated" when you're in an edit loop between an agent and a human?

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#536
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how I’d want it to be honestly. LLMs are tools and I’d hope we’re going to keep the people using them responsible. Just like any other tools we use.

It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.

I feel seen...

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#537
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how I’d want it to be honestly. LLMs are tools and I’d hope we’re going to keep the people using them responsible. Just like any other tools we use.

It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone can say with a straight face "Nobody out here" (sic) taking their job seriously and giving it the care and attention it rightly deserves.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been doing this for years, especially for libraries (internal or otherwise), anything that's `pub`/`export`, or gnarly logic that makes the intent not obvious. Not _everything_ is documented, but most things are. I'm doing it because I know how much I appreciate well-written documentation. Also this is a bit niche, but if you're using Rust and add examples to doc-comments, they get run as tests too. Also given…

>Also given we both managed to produce more than one sentence, and include capital letters in our comments, it's entirely possible both of us will be accused of being an AI. Could anyone explain the esoteric meaning of why people started doing that shit? I got a hypothesis, what's going on is something like this: 1. Prove you are human: write Like A Fucking Adult You Weirdo (internal designator for a specific languag…

What?

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#539

I am still just shocked that Claude Code was written in Typescript, not C++, Rust or Python. It also somehow messed up my alacritty config when I first used it. Who knows what other ~/.config files it modifies without warning.

Boris Cherney is author of a oreilly book about typescript

Yeah, this seems like a personal choice, which does work out given the current result.

Re: The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode

#540
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is code considered > which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest From your link, that's the only case where text needs to be attributed to AI.

Code may not be, but opening a Merge Request undercover may be unlawful: > Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system

That merge request would be AI generated content. You wouldn't be interacting directly with the AI system that opened it.
Post reply on HN