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

No right to relicense this project

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 388 posts

Re: No right to relicense this project

#311

Post by wareya »

maybewhenthesun wrote: post #266
antirez wrote: post #116

I believe that Pilgrim here does not understand very well how copyright works: > Their claim that it is a "complete rewrite" is irrelevant, since they had ample exposure to the originally licensed code This is simply not true. The reason why the "clean room" concept exists is precisely since actually the law recognizes that independent implementations ARE possibile. The "clean room" thing is a trick to make the litig…

Regardless of the legal interpretations, I think it's very worrying if an automated AI rewrite of GPLed code (or any code for that matter) could somehow be used to circumvent the original license. That kinda takes out the one stick the open source community has to force soulless multinationals to contribute back to the open source projects they use.

It's worrying, but it's consistent with how copyright law is currently written. Laws haven't caught up with what technology is currently capable of yet. The discussion should be whether, and if so how, our laws should be tweaked to stop this from getting out of hand, IMO.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#312

Post by joquarky »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #290
CamperBob2 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kinda takes out the one stick the open source community has to force soulless multinationals to contribute back to the open source projects they use. I'll trade that stick for what GenAI can do for me, in a heartbeat. The question, of course, is how this attitude -- even if perfectly rational at the moment -- will scale into the future. My guess is that pretty much all the original code that will ever need to be…

I think it's very weird but valid I guess to want to be just atomic individual in constant LLM feedback loop. But, at risk of sounding too trite and wholesome here, what about caring for others, the world at large? If you wanna get your thing to rewrite curl or something, that's again really weird but fine, but just don't share it or try to make money off of it. Isn't that like even the rational position here if you…

> what about caring for others, the world at large

30 years of experience in the tech industry taught me that this will get you nowhere. Nobody will reciprocate generosity or loyalty without an underlying financial incentive.

> What happened to sticking up for the underdogs?

Underdogs get SPACed out and dump the employees that got them there.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#313

Post by Manuel_D »

twoodfin wrote: post #286
Manuel_D wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the contrary, there have been many cases of very similar novels with largely identical plot points and settings that survive copyright allegations, even if the author was exposed to the original work. For a rather entertaining example (though raunchy, for a heads up): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhWWcWtAUoY&themeRefresh=1

Sure, but there’s some level of slavish copying with the serial numbers filed off that would convince a judge or a jury that it’s derivative.

Sure, but that level is a lot higher than what a lot of commenters seem to think.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#314

Post by joquarky »

nilsbunger wrote: post #248
pocksuppet wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut feeling is no, a work is not a derivative of a compliance test suite that it passes and was used to guide it. But I'm not a lawyer.

We’re going to be in a very weird place: * LLMs make it trivial to recreate almost any software using its test suite (maybe not a derivative work) * LLM generated code has no copyright (according to current court interpretations) Soon we will be able to make an unlicensed copy of anything if we have its test suite and a little money for tokens.

> We’re going to be in a very weird place

It's only weird because copyright is an unnatural abstraction that requires increasing amounts of legal upkeep to maintain.

And by the standard of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, it is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#316

Post by joquarky »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #298
red_admiral wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the GPL help a user who doesn't write code themselves?

By allowing them to benefit from the work of others who do. Directly or indirectly. I’m not good at car maintenance but I would benefit from an environment where schematics are open and cars are easy to maintain by everyone: there would be more knowledge around it, more garages for me to choose from, etc.

In context of your metaphor: what if we didn't need cars anymore?

Re: No right to relicense this project

#317

Post by joquarky »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #75
vova_hn2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to think about GPL as a kind of an artistic performance and an elaborate critique of the whole concept of copyright. Like, "we don't like copyright, but since you insist on enforcing it and we can't do anything against it, we will invent a clever way to use your own rules against you ".

That is not really the motivation behind GPL licenses. These licenses have been designed to ensure by legal means that anyone can learn from the source code of software, fix bugs on their own, and modify the software to their needs.

We've surpassed the need for this now.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#318

Post by beepbooptheory »

joquarky wrote: post #312
beepbooptheory wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's very weird but valid I guess to want to be just atomic individual in constant LLM feedback loop. But, at risk of sounding too trite and wholesome here, what about caring for others, the world at large? If you wanna get your thing to rewrite curl or something, that's again really weird but fine, but just don't share it or try to make money off of it. Isn't that like even the rational position here if you…

> what about caring for others, the world at large 30 years of experience in the tech industry taught me that this will get you nowhere. Nobody will reciprocate generosity or loyalty without an underlying financial incentive. > What happened to sticking up for the underdogs? Underdogs get SPACed out and dump the employees that got them there.

Grateful I do not share your experiences. But I'm sure your viewpoint here is hard won. Sorry.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#319

Post by wakawaka28 »

maybewhenthesun wrote: post #266
antirez wrote: post #116

I believe that Pilgrim here does not understand very well how copyright works: > Their claim that it is a "complete rewrite" is irrelevant, since they had ample exposure to the originally licensed code This is simply not true. The reason why the "clean room" concept exists is precisely since actually the law recognizes that independent implementations ARE possibile. The "clean room" thing is a trick to make the litig…

Regardless of the legal interpretations, I think it's very worrying if an automated AI rewrite of GPLed code (or any code for that matter) could somehow be used to circumvent the original license. That kinda takes out the one stick the open source community has to force soulless multinationals to contribute back to the open source projects they use.

Soulless multinationals often want to share costs with other soulless multinationals, just like individuals do. So I think there will always be publicly shared code. The real question is whether this code will be worth much if it can be implemented so quickly by a machine.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#320

Post by skeledrew »

red_admiral wrote: post #233
skeledrew wrote: post #81

I feel like the author is missing a huge point here by fighting this. The entire reason why GPL and any other copyleft license exists in the first place is to ensure that the rights of a user to modify, etc a work cannot be ever taken away. Before, relicensing as MIT - or any other fully permissive license - would've meant open doors to apply restrictions going forward, but with AI this is now a non-issue. Code is no…

Depends on who wants to take what away. If I release blub 1.0.0 under GPL, you cannot fork it and add features and release that closed-source, but I can certainly do that as I have ownership. I can't stop others continuing to use 1.0.0 and develop it further under the GPL, but what happens to my own 1.1.0 onwards is up to me. I can even sell the rights to use it closed-source.

You can do whatever you want. And someone else can - and will, if it's worth it - now do a deep analysis and have it reimplemented with said analysis, all via LLM. And particularly, since the law is now that AI creations can't be copyrighted, that reimplementation will be firmly in public domain. Nobody will have to even look at 1.1.0. See Valkey as one of the more recent examples, and there isn't even any LLM involved there.
Post reply on HN