Christine Lemmer-WebberMar 5
A new twist in the "AI license laundering of chardet" story https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327
No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet

Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...

GitHub
Show threadChristine Lemmer-WebberMar 5

But really, relicensing a GPL codebase to MIT is uninteresting.

Let's do the interesting one, which is: vibe code a "clean room" reimplementation of an entire proprietary codebase! After all, Microsoft released a "shared source" proprietary version of Windows. Now try seeing what happens if you run THAT through the "turn it into public domain" machine

Win-win outcome, no matter how it goes

Show threadChristine Lemmer-Webber

Winning option 1: yes, you can vibe code proprietary codebases into the public domain, allowing us to bootstrap proprietary codebases quickly

Winning option 2: stopping laundering of copyleft codebases

Either of these are interesting outcomes!

Mar 5 at 2:59pmWeb
Show threadChristine Lemmer-WebberMar 5
I left a comment to that effect here https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4005721071
No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet

Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...

GitHub
Show threadChristine Lemmer-WebberMar 5
omg I am just seeing now that the dude who did the "AI relicensing" fucking replied with an obvious slop response, of all the fucking disrespectful things to do, holy fucking shit https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4005195078
No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet

Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...

GitHub
Show threadSoapDogMar 5
@cwebber that whole relicensing and this slop reply are vomit inducing.
Show threadDoug BelshawMar 5
@soapdog @cwebber It's just the lack of understanding of what an LLM is that's makes one's hand want to smack one's forehead. Or, preferably, his.
Show threadBrian DavidMar 5
@soapdog @cwebber There is a real issue with people using LLMs to try to brute force their way out of a situation. Make a response that is long enough and plausible enough, and people will roll their eyes and often just give up. I have experienced this directly at work, and it drives me crazy.
Show threadArmchair EpistemologistMar 5
@cwebber I love the sentence "If you are indeed the Mark Pilgrim..." So steeped in bad faith that they assume others are too.
Show threadYour weary 'net denizenMar 5

@cwebber I'm not sure that's slop, but I won't discount the possibility... 🤔 But this part is funny in the dark humor sort of way:

"...explicitly instructed Claude not to base anything on LGPL/GPL-licensed code."

So, you see, no problem... 🙄

Show threadLuke HarbyMar 6

@cstanhope @cwebber

Claude after being explicitly instructed not to base anything on LGPL/GPL-licensed code

Show threadaevaMar 5
@cwebber these people don't know how to write on their own anymore lol
Show threadKirtai 🏳️‍⚧️Mar 5
@cwebber
If he can't be bothered to write it, why should we bother to read it?
Show threadQuantum ⊂ AIMar 5
@cwebber I felt my brain getting smoother as I read that
Show threadThommyMar 5
@cwebber that's exactly where my mind went to. Any time I've rewritten something that was in copyleft because I needed it copycenter or even with such inspiration, I wouldn't let myself even look at the original code. But it would be a net boon to OSS if the same rules apply to proprietary stuff. The bad situation would be if corporate lawyers effectively made it so that only their code is protected from such reimplementation.
Show threadJohn Francis 🇨🇦🦫🍁💪⬆️Mar 5

@cwebber good times! 😅

It's going to be fun to see how the boundaries of "human produced work" are defined over time, but I expect it will work out in whatever way benefits the big money players in software and media.

Does this only apply to "AI"? What does that mean? If I have a machine generated background crowd or vapour in some frames of my $300M blockbuster movie, can I still copyright it?

Show threadvv 💫 [follow my new artist profile!]Mar 5
@cwebber the losing outcome is people use it, but it is shitty, and then it's so widely adopted as a general concept that you're forced to use shitty software
Show threadChristine Lemmer-WebberMar 5

@vv yeah that's defintely the shitty outcome for usability

But... given that a lot of shittiness comes from an *uneven playing field* when it comes to copyright stuff, and people thinking they can wear down the commons with no consequences, I think it's worth pushing the needle on this approach

Show threadEVHasteMar 5

@cwebber I love the idea of weaponizing their reasoning in support of the working class.

Cynically though, I think there’s a third outcome: rules for thee, but not for me. In which Microsoft uses the full weight of their wallet to crush the common person, but is free to steal themselves, to profit off of the open source community. The rest of us are left to victimize each other with little legal recourse.

Is it logically consistent? Nope, but that’s the weird timeline we live in.

Show threadMark HughesMar 6

@Haste I increasingly see this as big tech and business having found a way to cut the legs off what has been a rapidly growing threat to their business models: FOSS.

GenAI can both copyright wash any source code, especially FOSS, and destroy the FOSS ecosystem. FOSS is terribly vulnerable right now and given the capture of governments and lawmakers by AI hype and lobbyists, I'm not sure it can survive in current form.

@cwebber

Show threadSprocket The ClownMar 5
@cwebber What constitutes laundering of copyleft codebases?
Show threadTim ChaseMar 5

@SprocketClown

The way I read it in this context is that an existing codebase has license (whether GPL, LGPL, or proprietary or whatever), and that by "laundering" the codebase through an LLM, the output no longer retains the retains the license terms. In the US at least, the Supreme Court has ruled that LLM output is uncopyrightable.

So as @cwebber highlights, either the licensewashing works, in which case LLMs can scrub licenses off proprietary codebases giving a leg up on "reproducing" proprietary codebases into the public domain; or it doesn't work, in which case LLM-produced code becomes subject to the licensing of the original code.

Show threadSam VinesMar 5
@cwebber Microslop committed to picking up the legal bill for anyone concerned about copyright issues with AI outputs from copilot so one could hypothetically use their tools to "clean room" implement Photoshop and then have Satya fight Adobe for your right to do so. Sounds fun to me!

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2023/09/07/copilot-copyright-commitment-ai-legal-concerns/
Microsoft announces new Copilot Copyright Commitment for customers - Microsoft On the Issues

With customers ask whether they can use Microsoft’s Copilot services without worrying about copyright claims, we are providing a straightforward answer: yes, you can, and if you are challenged on copyright grounds, we will assume responsibility for the potential legal risks involved.

Microsoft On the Issues
Show threadVal Packett 🧉Mar 5
@svines @cwebber call that Project Photoslop
Show threadBoris BarbourMar 5

@svines @cwebber

This is topical:

"To protect against this, customers ... must not attempt to generate infringing materials, including not providing input to a Copilot service that the customer does not have appropriate rights to use."

Show threadDemi Marie ObenourMar 6
@cwebber As long as you don’t get sued into oblivion!