Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That only matters if expression of the original project really does end up in the rewrite, doesn't it? No, I don't think so. I hate comparing LLMs with humans, but for a human being familiar with the original code might disqualify them from writing a differently-licensed version. Anyway, LLMs are not human, so as many courts confirmed, their output is not copyrightable at all, under any license.
Uh, this is just a curiosity, but do you have a reference for that last argument? If true, it would mean most commercial code being developed today, since it's increasingly AI-generated, would actually be copyright-free. I don't think most Western courts would uphold that position.
No right to relicense this project
91–100 of 388 posts
Re: No right to relicense this project
#92As part of my consulting, i've stumbled upon this issue in a commercial context. A SaaS company who has the mobile apps of their platform open source approached me with the following concern. One of their engineers was able to recreate their platform by letting Claude Code reverse engineer their Apps and the Web-Frontend, creating an API-compatible backend that is functionally identical. Took him a week after work. I…
You're not describing anything new, you're describing progress. A company invests time and money and expertise into building a product, it becomes established, people copy in 1/10th of the time, the quality of products across the industry improve. Long before generative AI, Instagram famously copied Snapchat's stories concept in a weekend, and that is now a multi-multi-multi-billion contributor to Meta's bottom line.
As engineers, we often think only about code, but code has never been what makes a business succeed. If your client thinks that their businesses primary value is in the mobile app code they wrote, 1) why is it even open source? 2) the business is doomed.
Realistically, though, this is inconsequential, and any time spent worrying about this is wasted time. You don't protect yourself from your competitor by worrying about them copying your mobile app.
Re: No right to relicense this project
#93I torn on where the line should be drawn. If the code is different but API compatible, Google Java vs Oracle Java case shows that if the implementation is different enough, it can be considered a new implementation. Clean room or not.
That whole clean room argument makes no sense. Project changed governance and was significantly refactored or reimplemented... I think the maintainers deserve to call it their own. Original-pre MIT release can stay LGPL. I don't think this is a precedent either, plenty of projects changed licenses lol. I keep kind mixing them up but the GPL licenses keep popping up as occasionally horror stories. Maybe the license is…
No, that defeats the entire purpose of GPL licenses
Re: No right to relicense this project
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Answer: probably not, as API-topography is also a part of copyright Edit: this is wrong
Didn't the Google - Oracle case about Java APIs in Android https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_... . directly disprove this?
In the end, the supreme court case decided that the re-implementation fell under fair use, it did not answer the copyright question.
Re: No right to relicense this project
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting case, IANAL but sounds legal and legit. The AI did not have expose to the backend it re-implemented. The API itself is public and not protectable.
OTOH as of yesterday the output of the LLM isn't copyrightable, which makes licensing it difficult
That's not really what the ruling said. Though, I suspect this type of "vibe rewrite" does fall afoul of the same issue.
But for this type of copyright laundering, it doesn't really matter. The goal isn't really about licensing it, it's about avoiding the existing licence. The idea that the code ends up as public domain isn't really an issue for them.
Re: No right to relicense this project
#96Wow that's hot. I was not aware that you need to be "untainted" by the original LGPL code. This could mean that... All AI generated code is tainted with GPL/LGPL because the LLMs might have been taught with it
"Taint" requires that the code is demonstratably derivative from the *GPL licensed work.
This is actually harder standard than some people think.
The absolute clean room approaches in USA are there because they help short circuit a long lawsuit where a bigger corp can drag forever until you're broken.
Re: No right to relicense this project
#97The README has clearly been touched by an LLM. Count the idiosyncrasies: “chardet 7.0 is a ground-up, MIT-licensed rewrite of chardet. Same package name, same public API — drop-in replacement for chardet 5.x/6.x” Do people not write anymore?
For me, some projects I start by writing a readme.txt by hand. That saves me time in cases I realize I'd be making something pointless. (I don't use chatbots when coding though)
Re: No right to relicense this project
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Because they couldnt have done any of that refactoring without a licence to do so, and that licence forbids them from relicencing it.
Afaik you can do whatever you like to GPL licensed code, you do not need a license to refactor it. I understand you need to publish the source code of your modifications, if you distribute them outside of your company.
You also can't relicense it to be less restrictive
Re: No right to relicense this project
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting case, IANAL but sounds legal and legit. The AI did not have expose to the backend it re-implemented. The API itself is public and not protectable.
OTOH as of yesterday the output of the LLM isn't copyrightable, which makes licensing it difficult
As other's have pointed out, this case is really about refusing to allow an LLM to be recognised as the author. The person using the LLM waived any right to be recognised as the author.
Its also US only. Other countries will differ. This means you can only rely on this ruling at all for something you are distributing only in the US. Might be OK for art, definitely not for most software. Very definitely not OK for a software library.
For example UK law specifically says "In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken."
Re: No right to relicense this project
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will hold up in court. The line of argument of “well I went into a dark room with only the first Harry Potter book and a type writer and reproduced the entire work, so now I own the rewrite” doesn’t hold up in court, it doesn’t either when when you put AI in the mix. It doesn’t matter if the result is slightly different, a judge will rule based on the fact that this even is literally what the law is intended to pr…
> “well I went into a dark room with only the first Harry Potter book and a type writer and reproduced the entire work, so now I own the rewrite” This is not a good analogy. A "rewrite" in context here is not a reproduction of the original work but a different work that is functionally equivalent, or at least that is the claim.
[deleted]