"No right to relicense this project" - on changing the license of Mark Pilgrim's chardet from LGPL to MIT after a vibe-coded rewrite
https://lemmy.ml/post/44059976
"No right to relicense this project" - on changing the license of Mark Pilgrim's chardet from LGPL to MIT after a vibe-coded rewrite - Lemmy
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967
[https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967] > for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pilgrim], he is/was a prolific author,
blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011. > >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527
[https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527] > > > HN comments
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177]
Well, I do not get his point, the code has been completely rewritten. Not to mention that the new license is much better than the old one.
If the llm they used was trained on the original code, the result was not legally rewritten. To change licensing without buy in from all original authors, the new code must be fully original from spec. Ignoring the legal definitions for convenience opens the door for corporations to steal open source and copyleft materials and strip away the licensing requirements.
That’s a wild claim you’re making. So far, it looks like the code is completely new, and for this case, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. New code - new license.
okay, you have to be able to prove the LLM didn’t learn off of the original source material. Because if it is, its dertivitve work, making it subject to LGPL.
Arthur Besse
hobata
zogrewaste
redrum