Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

tuananh.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 408 posts

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#291

Post by ndriscoll »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #288
ndriscoll wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your test is more like the following: Consider a password consisting of random words each chosen from a 4k dictionary. Say you choose 10 words. Then your password has log_2(4k)*10 entropy. Now consider a validator that tells you when you gets a word right. Then you can guess one word at a time, and your password strength is log_2(4k*10). Exponentially weaker. You're constructing the second scenario and pretending it'…

You're still missing the point. The numbers don't matter because it's copyright infringement as long as I can get the book out. As long as I know the key, or the seed, I can get the book out. In court, how would you prove it's not infringement?

Because you put the book in. Again, this is measurable. Compress the book with a model as the predictor. The residual is you having to give it the answer. It's literally you telling it the book.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#292

Post by j45 »

danlitt wrote: post #134

I am pretty sure this article is predicated on a misunderstanding of what a "clean room" implementation means. It does not mean "as long as you never read the original code, whatever you write is yours". If you had a hermetically sealed code base that just happened to coincide line for line with the codebase for GCC, it would still be a copy. Traditionally, a human-driven clean room implementation would have a vanish…

This reminds me of a full rewrite.

When a developer reimplements a complete new version of code from scratch, with an understanding only, a new implementation generally should be an improvement on any source code not equal.

In today’s world, letting LLMs replicate anything will generate average code as “good” and generally create equivalent or more bloat anyways unless well managed.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#293

Post by amiga386 »

foooorsyth wrote: post #213
danlitt wrote: post #134

I am pretty sure this article is predicated on a misunderstanding of what a "clean room" implementation means. It does not mean "as long as you never read the original code, whatever you write is yours". If you had a hermetically sealed code base that just happened to coincide line for line with the codebase for GCC, it would still be a copy. Traditionally, a human-driven clean room implementation would have a vanish…

>The actual meaning of a "clean room implementation" is that it is derived from an API and not from an implementation This is incorrect and thinking this can get you sued https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...

Whether you get sued is more on the plaintiff than you.

Per your link, the Supreme Court's thinking on "structure, sequence and organization" (Oracle's argument why Google shouldn't even be allowed to faithfully produce a clean-room implementation of an an API) has changed since the 1980s out of concern that using it to judge copyright infringement risks handing copyright holders a copyright-length monopoly over how to do a thing:

> enthusiasm for protection of "structure, sequence and organization" peaked in the 1980s [..] This trend [away from "SS&O"] has been driven by fidelity to Section 102(b) and recognition of the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent

The Supreme Court specifically recognised Google's need to copy the structure, sequence and organization of Java APIs in order to produce a cleanroom Android runtime library that implemented Java APIs so that that existing Java software could work correctly with it.

Similarly, see Oracle v. Rimini Street (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/16/2...) where Rimini Street has been producing updates that work with Oracle's products, and Oracle claimed this made them derivative works. The Court of Appeals decided that no, the fact A is written to interoperate with B does not necessarily make A a derivative work of B.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#294

Post by angiolillo »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #274
angiolillo wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amazing! But are you sure that the page is not satire? > Tired of putting "Portions of this software..." in your documentation? Those maintainers worked for free—why should they get credit? ... Some licenses require you to contribute improvements back. Your shareholders didn't invest in your company so you could help strangers. And the testimonials from "Definitely Real Corp", "MegaSoft Industries" and "Profit…

Damnit. Poe's law strikes again.

Well, if the chardet relicensing stands then something like this will eventually be real, though perhaps not so publicly shameless. (The page is still a fantastic find though.)

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#295

Post by buckle8017 »

umvi wrote: post #285
buckle8017 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Claude was for sure trained on the original work and when asked to produce a new product that does the same thing will just spit out a (near) copy

Ok, but what if in the future I could guarantee that my generative model was not trained on the work I want to replicate. Like say X library is the only library in town for some task, but it has a restrictive license. Can I use a model that was guaranteed not trained on X to generate a new library Z that competes with X with a more permissive license? What if someone looks and finds a lot of similarities?

I wish you luck proving it wasn't trained on the original library or any work that infringed itself.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#296

Post by mlinhares »

leecommamichael wrote: post #199
pornel wrote: post #185

Generative AI changed the equation so much that our existing copyright laws are simply out of date. Even copyright laws with provisions for machine learning were written when that meant tangential things like ranking algorithms or training of task-specific models that couldn't directly compete with all of their source material. For code it also completely changes where the human-provided value is. Copyright protects…

“Changing the equation” by boldly breaking the law.

Its only breaking the law if you don't have enough money to pay the politicians.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#297

Post by aeon_ai »

calny wrote: post #260

The maintainer's response: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4... The second part here is problematic, but fascinating: "I then started in an empty repository with no access to the old source tree, and explicitly instructed Claude not to base anything on LGPL/GPL-licensed code." Problem - Claude almost certainly was trained on the LGPL/GPL original code. It knows that is how to solve the prob…

You've likely paid attention to the litigation here. Regardless of what remains to be litigated, the training in and of itself has already been deemed fair use (and transformative) by Alsup.

Further, you know that ideas are not protected by copyright. The code comparison in this demonstrates a relatively strong case that the expression of the idea is significantly different from that of the original code.

If it were the case that the LLM ingested the code and regurgitated it (as would be the premise of highlighting the training data provenance), that similarity would be much higher. That is not the case.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#298

Post by lokar »

petercooper wrote: post #176
danlitt wrote: post #134

I am pretty sure this article is predicated on a misunderstanding of what a "clean room" implementation means. It does not mean "as long as you never read the original code, whatever you write is yours". If you had a hermetically sealed code base that just happened to coincide line for line with the codebase for GCC, it would still be a copy. Traditionally, a human-driven clean room implementation would have a vanish…

The actual meaning of a "clean room implementation" is that it is derived from an API and not from an implementation I know you were simplifying, and not to take away from your well-made broader point, but an API-derived implementation can still result in problems, as in Google vs Oracle [1]. The Supreme Court found in favor of Google (6-2) along "fair use" lines, but the case dodged setting any precedent on the natu…

Yeah, a cleanroom re-write, or even "just" a copy of the API spec is something to raise as a defense during a trial (along with all other evidence), it's not a categorical exemption from the law.

Also, I find it important that here the API is really minimal (compared to the Java std lib), the real value of the library is in the internal detection logic.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#299

Post by hennell »

pocksuppet wrote: post #198
pornel wrote: post #185

Generative AI changed the equation so much that our existing copyright laws are simply out of date. Even copyright laws with provisions for machine learning were written when that meant tangential things like ranking algorithms or training of task-specific models that couldn't directly compete with all of their source material. For code it also completely changes where the human-provided value is. Copyright protects…

It's not a problem. If you give a work to an AI and say "rewrite this", you created a derivative work. If you don't give a work to an AI and say "write a program that does (whatever the original code does)" then you didn't. During discovery the original author will get to see the rewriter's Claude logs and see which one it is. If the rewriter deleted their Claude logs during the lawsuit they go to jail. If the rewrit…

But the AI has the work to derive from already. I just went to Gemini and said "make me a picture of a cartoon plumber for a game design". Based on your logic the image it made me of a tubby character with a red cap, blue dungarees, red top and a big bushy mustache is not a derivative work...

(interestingly asking it to make him some friends it gave me more 'original' ideas, but asking it to give him a brother and I can hear the big N's lawyers writing a letter already...)

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#300

Post by galaxyLogic »

amelius wrote: post #290
oofbey wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference in indemnification based on which plan you’re on is super important. Thanks for pointing that out - never would have thought to look.

Is this clause even legally valid? How can the user know if the LLM produces anything that violates copyright? (Of course they shouldn't have trained it on infringing content in the first place, and perhaps used a different model for enterprise, etc.)

"... If AI-generated code cannot be copyrighted (as the courts suggest) ".

So, Supreme Court has said that. AI-produced code can not be copyrighted. (Am I right?). Then who's to blame if AI produces code large portions of which already exist coded and copyrigted by humans (or corporations).

I assume it goes something like this:

A) If you distribute code produced by AI, YOU cannot claim copyright to it.

B) If you distribute code produced by AI, YOU CAN be held liable for distributing it.

Post reply on HN