@miss_rodent I tend to think that the copyright concerns are both
A) real, and
B) overblown.
There's a fair amount of case law at this point that indicates that you can mix in a small amount of human creativity to create something copyrightable. In the context of coding, particularly of open source, the "raw" LLM outputs are generally not even accessible, given that a bunch of human creative choices go into what to submit, and the project as a whole has an umbrella of human creativity generally
@miss_rodent But, to take the recent example of chardet:
While I do not like Bruce Perens's opinion on the copyright status of v7, I think he is *probably* correct on the merits under current jurisprudence. The "clean room" implementation is *probably* going to be ruled either uncopyrightable (public domain) or copyrighted (MIT license) by the "new author" by dint of a few minor choices around its submission and structure.
HOWEVER…
1. That's only in the US, nad
2. In this case, we already have a motivated and highly pissed-off litigant in the form of Mark Pilgrim who broke a *decade-long silence* to tell people that if they FA they might FO. A years-long lawsuit where you *win* is still a pretty catastrophic form of "finding out" in this case. There's still a pretty good chance, even if <50%, that he wins if he decides to sue, and even if he doesn't, you don't want to be standing in the blast radius
Glyph
Natanael ⚠️