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 LinderudMar 4

@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.

Show threadaeris
@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.
Mar 4 at 2:29pmWeb