eleijeep

No need. Let corporations replace human-designed human-tested code with public domain slop. Soon enough they’ll realise that they’re using millions of lines of code that is completely unsupported by any sapient being and when they get hit with ransomware because their nginx-rewrite had a command injection vulnerability they will fire the CTO and replace all the slop with the FOSS licensed originals.

If all users have the same fingerprint then nobody is getting fingerprinted.

Long time lurker

Joined: a week ago

max 50Gb is the catch

If you don’t have legs then how can you go pantsless in a video call? Checkmate Zuck!

Nice, thanks!

“Can’t even say you’re English these days…”

Would be nice of you to link sources. This is not a criticism, as I too am a jam-first person.

They are claiming they did a magic trick with an LLM and now the project is MIT licensed. And you are saying that it’s not, it’s public domain.

That’s absolutely not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the rewrite of chardet infringes on the copyright of the original work. That is neither MIT licensed nor public domain. It’s illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted work.

A recent case study illustrates this point: last month, an amateur Austrian mountaineer was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter for leaving his exhausted girlfriend behind on his country’s highest peak while he went in search of help. The man, a Salzburg chef identified only as Thomas P, said he was “endlessly sorry” for her death, and his lawyer called it a “tragic accident”. But Thomas P could not explain why he failed to wrap his freezing girlfriend in her emergency blanket before heading down the mountain without her. Earlier in their trek he had also told a police officer over the phone that they did not need any help, even though a rescue helicopter was made available to them.

I remember hearing about this one.

Because the title of the post is

Can coding agents relicense open source …

My response was no, because the output will always be in the public domain, which is the opposite of licensed.

However your reply asked a different question:

So you are agreeing using the LLM worked?

This is a different question, because it’s asking not about the general case of “can a coding agent produce a clean-room reimplementation” but rather “did the chardet rewrite achieve the goals of the maintainer?”

It’s clear from the information uncovered about the chardet rewrite that it cannot be considered a clean-room reimplementation, therefore there is an argument to be made of copyright infringement, regardless of whether anyone can own the copyright for it.

But the title of the article is asking whether the general case is possible. In that case, an agent reimplementing a project that does not appear in its own training data and whose prompts do not contain any copyrighted source code, could in theory produce a clean-room reimplementation from functional descriptions alone, that would not violate the copyright of the author of the original project.

However in that case, the rewrite would still not be licensable since nobody would own the copyright to it.

I hope that clears up the point I was making and why it’s relevant to the post.

Whether you own the copyright to your derivative work is not the same question as whether you are infringing someone else’s copyright.

Can you use DNS challenges instead? That would just require that you can create a TXT record in your domain.

Well last I heard you can’t copyright the output of an LLM, so the entire concept of a licence for open slopware is moot.

Removed by mod

Using an LLM to do a database migration is like asking your neighbour’s kid to file your taxes.

I don’t frankly care to learn what the pedo in charge of Google is called.

Blunder Pinochet. Or is it Sundial Pinoy. Or Thundercat Pyjamas.

And it breaks sooo many sites.

No it doesn’t. I use Librewolf and this common refrain is FUD.

Particularly since their output cannot be copyrighted. A project that takes FLOSS licensing as seriously as Debian does can’t just throw caution to the wind and start allowing code with no attribution, copyright or licence.

Which bit?