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

361–370 of 388 posts

Re: No right to relicense this project

#361

Post by TophWells »

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.

True, but if that is found to be how it works then an automated AI rewrite of closed-source code is just as unbound by the original license. Which is a much bigger win for the open-source community, since any closed-source software can become the inspiration for an open-source project.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#362

Post by hoopyKt »

amtamt wrote: post #360
hoopyKt wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a certain irony here as well that this project was considered for actual community ownership by being added to the standard library, but it was decided that it was ineligible due to the LGPL license. Had this been MIT from the start you'd actually be correct about the community having some kind of ownership over how the project is operated, but that isn't the case here, it's not community owned. It's owned b…

Just one question, why maintainer is hell bent on using existing name and removing LGPL and not create an entirely new project by new name and new license (after all this is completely new code... right)? First reason would be use the "name recall", and second guess would be to do another rug-pull to re-licence under some other conditions. > It's owned by the maintainer This is completely in-correct. GPL and variants…

Possibly they're "hell bent" on using the existing name because they've been using that name for their project in their github repository with their pip package that they've been supporting for a decade now. If they chose to make a new name, new package, new repo the current one would simply be abandonware. That's no different from what they're doing now, but with the added benefit of including a mechanism to inform their users of the situation.

You're acting like they've just swooped in in the last week to steal this repo out from under the community, when you have to go back to 2024 to see another person's name in the commits and to 2022 to see another person show up more than once. This one guy has been thanklessly maintaining chardet for years, decided to do a fresh rewrite and decided he'd like to use a different license now that the opportunity is here.

> GPL and variants (FOSS, not OSS) were meant to make software free of "any ownership".

And you're right! Version 6 and earlier is (functionally but not actually) free of "any ownership"! It still exists in this repo and out in the world! You can still personally fork it and make your own LGPL with a version 7 if that's the world you want to live in! If you don't want to use an OSS project using MIT you still have the community non-ownership of that code!

But you're not upset that the new code is MIT, you're upset that the new MIT code is using that name in pip and GitHub, but pip is MIT and GitHub is proprietary! The parts you're mad about were never LGPL! Because reminder! This code works outside of pip! Git is decentralized, this GitHub repository isn't the source of truth! Your fork of version 6 is just as real and valid as the MIT'd version 7! Your fork of version 6 can still be called chardet and will still work and is still community owned! You never had to use this guy's repo and this guy's pip publication! And nobody is entitled to this guy's pip account or GitHub account just because he rewrote the library, the community is entitled to the software and they still have it. This is all 100% valid under even the strictest FOSS license, much less LGPL.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#363

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #324
rao-v wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m genuinely surprised to see this not discussed more by the FOSS community. There are so many ways to blow past the GPL now: 1. File by file rewrite by AI (“change functions and vars a bit”) 2. One LLM writes a diff language (or pseudo code) version of each function that a diff LLM translates back into code and tests for input/output parity The real danger is that this becomes increasingly undetectable in closed so…

"change functions and bars a bit" isn't a rewrite. Anything where the LLM had access to the original code isn't a rewrite. This would just be a derivative work. However most of the industry willfully violates the GPL without even trying such tricks anyway so there are certainly issues

The fact that you are drawing such absolute conclusions is indication enough that you are not qualified to speak on this.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#364

Post by tricorn »

Copyright protects "authorship", not functionality. Patent protects functional elements.

A rewrite based on functional equivalency is not infringing on the copyright as long as no creative expression was copied. That was the heart of the Google case, whether the API itself was creative expression or functionality.

There are many aspects to what can be considered creative expression, including names, organization, non-functional aspects. An algorithm would not be protected expression. If an AI can write it without reference to the original source code, using only documented behavior, then it would not be infringing (proving that it didn't copy anything from training data might be tough though). It also would not itself be copyrightable, except for elements that could be traced back as "authorship" to the humans who worked with the AI.

If LLMs can create GOOD software based only on functionality, not by copying expression, then they could reproduce every piece of GPL software and release it as Public Domain (which it would have to be if no human has any authorship in it). By the same principle that the GPL software wasn't infringing on the programs they copied functionality from, neither would the AI software. That's a big IF at this point, though, the part about producing GOOD software without copying.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#365

Post by spoiler »

Orygin wrote: post #144
spoiler wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have been maintaining the project for years. It's not like some Joe Random with ChatGPT randomly entered the scene

And? Doesn't give them any right to re-license the code. Especially not to strip rights for other users.

But it's a reimplementation... So it's new code, their code. Can't they license it? Only the project name and the API surface remained similar

Re: No right to relicense this project

#366

Post by amtamt »

hoopyKt wrote: post #362
amtamt wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one question, why maintainer is hell bent on using existing name and removing LGPL and not create an entirely new project by new name and new license (after all this is completely new code... right)? First reason would be use the "name recall", and second guess would be to do another rug-pull to re-licence under some other conditions. > It's owned by the maintainer This is completely in-correct. GPL and variants…

Possibly they're "hell bent" on using the existing name because they've been using that name for their project in their github repository with their pip package that they've been supporting for a decade now. If they chose to make a new name, new package, new repo the current one would simply be abandonware. That's no different from what they're doing now, but with the added benefit of including a mechanism to inform…

One would say

this guy's forked MIT'd version 0 will be as real and valid as version 6 of original chardet.

instead of

> Your fork of version 6 is just as real and valid as the MIT'd version 7!

Supporting for a decade is not a basis for unilateral takeover. In last 3 months there seem to be at least 3 other active contributors, any many dozens in past, who share the copyright on parts (ownership)

> nobody is entitled to this guy's pip account or GitHub account just because he rewrote the library

this guy's also not entitled to takeover what is communal, exactly in the same manner.

Someone answered it long ago in quite some details. Feel free to have a look: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11455485

Re: No right to relicense this project

#367

Post by hiccuphippo »

joquarky wrote: post #315
kykat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be no open source without the gpl

Nothing lasts forever. We now have tools that let us fulfill the ultimate goal of open source. GPL was a means, not an end.

This. If Stallman could have asked AI to generate the source code for the printer driver, the GPL would not exist.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#368

Post by tricorn »

skeledrew wrote: post #88
senko wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very incorrect reading. AI can't be the author of the work. Human driving the AI can, unless they zero-shotted the solution with no creative input.

The human is still at best a co-author, as the primary implementation effort isn't theirs. And I think effort involved is the key contention in these cases. Yesterday ideas were cheap, and it was the execution that matters. Today execution is probably cheaper than ideas, but things should still hold.

No, effort is explicitly not a factor in copyright. It was at one point, but "sweat of the brow" doctrine went away in Feist Publications in 1991, at least in the US.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#369

Post by hoopyKt »

amtamt wrote: post #366
hoopyKt wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly they're "hell bent" on using the existing name because they've been using that name for their project in their github repository with their pip package that they've been supporting for a decade now. If they chose to make a new name, new package, new repo the current one would simply be abandonware. That's no different from what they're doing now, but with the added benefit of including a mechanism to inform…

One would say this guy's forked MIT'd version 0 will be as real and valid as version 6 of original chardet. instead of > Your fork of version 6 is just as real and valid as the MIT'd version 7! Supporting for a decade is not a basis for unilateral takeover. In last 3 months there seem to be at least 3 other active contributors, any many dozens in past, who share the copyright on parts (ownership) > nobody is entitled…

You're ignoring the part where the maintainer demonstrated that version 7 isn't a relicense of LGPL work but a complete rewrite based on public domain research and algorithms. That stack overflow article is irrelevant to this situation, and again, versions 6 and before have not been "taken over" they still exist exactly as they did a week ago and are still available to anyone that wants them in full license compliance. LGPL requires the source be made available, not that the source's distribution channels never be used for something else.

Re: No right to relicense this project

#370

Post by nothrabannosir »

red_admiral wrote: post #354
nothrabannosir wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't the legal situation the opposite here? Car manufacturers don't release schematics because they believe in "free as in freedom". In fact any interfaces you as an end-user or an independent garage can use and schematics that are released such as the protocol for the diagnostic port, are open primarily because govermnents made laws saying so. I'm most familiar with the "right to repair" situation with John Deere,…

Yes I think we agree? I was even thinking specifically about John Deere but I’ve never bought a tractor so it seemed a gauche comparison :)
Post reply on HN