lcamtuf   Mar 6
If you ask AI to rewrite the entirety of an open-source program, do you still need to abide by the original license? In philosophy, this problem is known as the Slop of Theseus
Show threadKevin RiggleMar 6
@lcamtuf actual answer: of course you do, it’s prima facie a derivative work, same as if you had rewritten the program by hand.
Show threadBen GalehouseMar 6

@kevinr @lcamtuf And if you ask it to write a detailed spec based on its implementation, and then separately to write an implementation of that spec?

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/

Tales from 80s Tech: How Compaq’s Clone Computers Skirted IBM’s IP and Gave Rise to EISA

In the 1980s, Compaq was the first company to produce a portable IBM-compatible machine legally, but they flirted with breaking copyright law in the process.

All About Circuits
Show threadTom BortelsMar 6

@bgalehouse @lcamtuf @kevinr

Assuming you used the original source code to derive the detailed spec, then yes, that too is a derivative work.

The "viral" nature of that sort of license has bothered me for a long time. It's always been simultaneously overly far reaching and impossible to realistically enforce.

Show threadTom BortelsMar 6

@lcamtuf @bgalehouse @kevinr

But here's an interesting question:

If you do not execute the code - did you accept the license? Does simply reading it sufficiently to be able to write a spec bind you to that license? That seems a bit too much.

Show threaddaughter of lilith Mar 6
@tbortels why would execution be needed to agree? You as a third party don't need to agree to the license, but if it's an open license to have the privilege to edit/reuse the code you have to agree to do it. By default the code is closed, the license opens it up for you, if you somehow don't agree to it you can't use the code at all because it's closed by default

(completely unrelated to the AI thing. fuck AI)
Show threadTom BortelsMar 6

@marta

I'm not sure "closed" is the right word. Clearly it's not closed if you are providing it - it's right there, I can read it and even redistribute it without burden.

It's "copyrighted", not closed. You can't modify closed source because you don't have the source. The assertion being made is you can't modify GPL'd open source without accepting the license. But copyright has its own carve-outs, and I am unconvinced that writing a spec or net-new code is a modification, as opposed to regular old copyright fair use.

Show threaddaughter of lilith Mar 6
@tbortels you cannot redistribute copyrighted material(?)

If you make a spec of copyrighted code that's effectively instructions on how to reproduce the code and can be used to commercially compete with the owners of the code so I doubt it could classify as fair use.
Show threadTom Bortels

@marta

It's about how to reproduce the functionality - the code could be an entirely different language.

And - "commercially compete" with someone giving away code for free seems a non-concern.

Mar 6 at 10:09amWeb
Show threaddaughter of lilith Mar 6
@tbortels competition is one of the factors that go into what qualifies as fair use, so no, it is not a non-concern. And no, someone publishing their code with open access does not give it away for free wtf