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 threadmirabilos
@bgalehouse @kevinr @tbortels @lcamtuf the licence allows you to do things you’re not allowed to do without it, and puts that permission on conditions. So, no way around that.
Mar 6 at 10:24pmWeb