Morten LinderudMar 4

Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?

https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0

That is one way to launder GPL code I guess?

Release 7.0.0 · chardet/chardet

Ground-up, MIT-licensed rewrite of chardet. Same package name, same public API — drop-in replacement for chardet 5.x/6.x. Just way faster and more accurate! Highlights: MIT license (previous versi...

GitHub
Show threadscyMar 4
@Foxboron lol right, because Claude certainly wasn't trained on GPL code
Show threadMorten LinderudMar 4

@scy
US court is leaning towards that LLM generated code is fundamentally not copyrightable.

This is a different problem to the moral issues I have with this.

Show threadscyMar 4
@Foxboron But does "is not copyrightable" mean that "is not a license violation of its input data"? I highly doubt it.
Show threadMorten LinderudMar 4
@scy
A license violation usually implies that there is a copyright violation to begin with.
Show threadscyMar 4

@Foxboron Yeah but that's what I mean: Just because the end result is not copyrightable, does that automatically mean that it can't be a copyright violation?

Like, changing the format or medium of something is not a copyrightable work.

So, by that logic, if I take a copyrighted MP3 and convert it to AAC and publish that, my AAC is not copyrightable, but it's not a copyright violation to take it and publish it?

That's what I mean.

Show threadMorten LinderudMar 4
@scy
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to try and debate what is and isn't a copyright violation.
Show threadJosh BressersMar 4

@Foxboron @scy

This will have to go through a court case to settle it probably

But if I look at your source code, then I reproduce some of your source exactly, that's a problem

Show threadMorten Linderud

@joshbressers @scy

Supreme Court has already dismissed such cases.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-for-ai-generated-material.html

So we are getting a precedent in US law. Yet to be settled in any high court in the EU though.

Mar 4 at 12:59pmWeb
Show threadJosh BressersMar 4

@Foxboron @scy

I suspect this is different. That case someone trying to copyright something the AI spit out, not asking if AI can violate a copyright by copying something almost verbatim

Of course I haven't looked to see if the chardet code is mostly a copy, if it's not, then 🤷

Show threadMorten LinderudMar 4

@joshbressers @scy

Sure, but we are not really looking at, nor discussing, cases where LLMs spits out something verbatim from another project in this case.

Show threadJoe BrockmeierMar 4

@Foxboron @joshbressers @scy Open-source projects that have sought to be compatible with proprietary software, e.g. Samba trying to be compatible with Windows SMB, etc., have (if I'm not misremembering) taken a "clean room" approach and outright stated they do not want any code from any developer who had even looked at the MSFT code for fear of being accused of infringement.

The copyrightability of LLM output is not relevant here - the only question is whether a court would consider the original license infringed upon in the creation of the output.

As I understand it, though, this is a reimplementation of a codebase by the same contributors -- Dan Blanchard seems to be the primary maintainer before and after the rewrite, so ISTM he'd be able to relicense the project regardless of whether it was passed through an LLM first.

It will be interesting when this happens because a company or person decides "I don't like copyleft, so I'll just run this through the LLM wash until I get a functional copy". But this doesn't seem to be that.

Show threadscyMar 4
@jzb @Foxboron @joshbressers Maintainers can't just change the license without asking each and every contributor for their approval. In open source projects, contributors usually keep their individual copyright, except when the project has them sign additional terms, or assign copyright to the project or something.
Show threadJoe BrockmeierMar 4

@scy @Foxboron @joshbressers I mean, they _can_ if they rewrite the code in question.

So here - *if* one of the LGPL code contributors is offended by the license change they could look at the new codebase and see if the new code resembles their contribution. Then they'd have to challenge it.

But projects have been relicensed without seeking permission from every contributor and/or by removing contributions if they cannot get approval. I'm not aware of any cases where a contributor has successfully challenged such - but there's always a first time.

Show threadMorten LinderudMar 4

@scy @jzb @joshbressers

Depends.

If you have a permissively licensed project, you can change the source to GPL by just using a poison pill approach.

This is what Forgejo did as an example.

https://forgejo.org/2024-08-gpl/

This works as the MIT license terms are met.

The other way would not work.

Forgejo is now copyleft, just like Git

Show threadscyMar 4

@Foxboron @jzb @joshbressers You're right, I should've worded that differently.

They can change the license, if the current license allows it.

Still, everyone keeps their individual copyright.

Show threadGlyphMar 4
@Foxboron @joshbressers @scy verbatim isn’t the question here, the question is infringement. is the output here substantially derivative of previous versions of chardet to the point that it could be considered infringing? US copyright precedent is a muddled mess and I think this could implicate at least one unresolved circuit split. I don’t know what the answer will be but I know I wouldn’t want to be standing in the blast radius of that decision
Show threadaerisMar 4
@Foxboron @joshbressers @scy Supreme court dismissed copyright case against generated material. Nobody discard case for infringement by this generated material.

You can't pursue somebody for reusing your AI material, because such material can't be copyrighted), but you can pursue somebody to have generated AI material from your copyrighted (and so not AI) material.