Morten LinderudApparently 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?
scy@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.
Thommy
aeris@thomasjwebb @Foxboron @scy They decide that. AI material is not human generated, so not copyrightable.
But it doesn't mean this material is not copyright infringement, the only dropped case concerned AI ppl trying to sue other AI ppl based on copyright, not at all real human pursuing AI material.
Currently NYT is on this way, and solid rock at this time : https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/technology/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit.html
But it doesn't mean this material is not copyright infringement, the only dropped case concerned AI ppl trying to sue other AI ppl based on copyright, not at all real human pursuing AI material.
Currently NYT is on this way, and solid rock at this time : https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/technology/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit.html
Paul Chambers🚧@thomasjwebb Right now, that is how SCOTUS is leaning regarding AI generated output. They refused to interfere with a patent application and "artist" copyright, leaving it up to the copyright and patent offices to decide, which they said no. Some guy used AI to create a beverage holder and light beacon using AI. When the patent was denied, he tried to copyright the AI created "artist" renditions to get around the patent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-449.html
your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦YUP
copyright is for humans, not automata ―hard or soft.
so, ironically, the prompts are copyrightable but not the output.
so anything you want to copyright should not be prompted into a corporate regurgitation machine, including so-called grammar checkers.
Dan Sugalski@thomasjwebb @Foxboron @scy In the US, at least, human authorship is required for copyright, and if you try to copyright something that's a mix of AI and human generated then generally only the human generated part is copyrightable.
This is separate from the LLMs emitting text other people have written, so at *best* this code can't be licensed because it's not copyrightable, and at worst its license laundering and there's precedent (IIRC) for stomping on that hard.
