@zggf I'm developing something of a similar concept. I wanted to know if I could chat with you for a few minutes.
Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
61–70 of 87 posts
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> MIT so yolo let's go mac some monnney and PJ outta Dubai etc etc > TeamViktor's faces surely? But they're busy diamond handsing all the way to the moon so probably don't even care. XD would anyone please be so kind to translate these parts of this comment into something a 45+ year old would understand?
don't let age phase you out of culture. that's not real. william shatner is near 100 and the man is locked in with the latest stuff.
Not an age thing, just how terminally online you are.
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#63@zggf I'm developing something of a similar concept. I wanted to know if I could chat with you for a few minutes.
Let's connect on LinkedIn, it's on "about" page in blog
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#64There are gonna be some really interesting legal decisions to read in the coming years, that’s for sure… --- The rest of this comment is irrelevant, but leaving for posterity, I had the wrong Viktor - it's getviktor.com not viktor.ai: Edit: this one particularly interesting to me as both parties are in the EU. VIKTOR.ai is a Dutch company and the author of this post is Polish. The ToS for Viktor.ai include the follow…
Terms of service might matter more for terminating that user account. Whole ordeal is just plain copyright violation. The author had no licence to that internal code, and whitewashing it with LLM will achieve nothing. That case is much clearer than that recent GPL->BSD attempt story.
There's no difference between ARR copyright infringement and GPL copyright infringement. Either it is infringement or it is not.
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
If LLM-generated code isn't considered a derivative work of the original, then whether the author was licensed to use the code doesn't matter. But I'm sure the courts will rule in favor of your view regardless. Laundering GPL is in corps' interest and laundering their code is not.
I'm not sure why people are clinging to some fuzzy and stretched out notion of copyright and the GPL in a particular. LLM's do NOT just copy code, with the right prompting, they generate entirely new code which can produce the same results as already existing code - GPLed or not. If copyright is extended to cover such cases we'll have to become all lawyers and do nothing but sue each other because the fuzziness of it…
And if that's true it's also true in this case where there was no GPL involved
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#66Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
don't let age phase you out of culture. that's not real. william shatner is near 100 and the man is locked in with the latest stuff.
Not an age thing, just how terminally online you are.
We just don't subscribe to traditional rest cycles (what Kagi Translate translated from "I should be sleeping right now, but I'm browsing HN" in LinkedIn Speak).
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#68There are gonna be some really interesting legal decisions to read in the coming years, that’s for sure… --- The rest of this comment is irrelevant, but leaving for posterity, I had the wrong Viktor - it's getviktor.com not viktor.ai: Edit: this one particularly interesting to me as both parties are in the EU. VIKTOR.ai is a Dutch company and the author of this post is Polish. The ToS for Viktor.ai include the follow…
Terms of service might matter more for terminating that user account. Whole ordeal is just plain copyright violation. The author had no licence to that internal code, and whitewashing it with LLM will achieve nothing. That case is much clearer than that recent GPL->BSD attempt story.
If the internal code was LLM generated it has no copyright.
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misreading of the law. AI cannot hold authorship of code, but no ruling has claimed so far that ai output itself can't be copyrighted (that I know of)
This would suggest that there has been and that there seem little will to revisit it: https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-... That said, the article says "Okay, prompts, great. Are they any interesting? Surprisingly... yes. As an example workflow_discovery contains a full 6-phase recipe for mining business processes out of Slack conversations, something that definitely required time and experi…
That Reuters article is misleadingly worded. The Stephen Thaler case in question is because Thaler tried to register the AI itself as the author of the copyright, not that he tried to register the output for copyright under his own name. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/the-f...
Re: Reverse-engineering Viktor and making it open source
#70Nice. Probably worth making a local copy before it gets taken down. (Re: legal - why even bother with a court decision when it’s on GitHub? A takedown is much simpler. We've seen this before, like when Meta went after people reverse-engineering their API) That said there may not be much here thats actually protectable. It's mostly a CLI orchestrating other tools, and the same functionality could likely be reproduced…
Thanks, I put some effort into the blog. The process might be even more useful and reusable than the code itself for many people.
was a very interesting approach to web stack RE, I appreciated it. Good luck.