Wow that's hot. I was not aware that you need to be "untainted" by the original LGPL code. This could mean that...
All AI generated code is tainted with GPL/LGPL because the LLMs might have been taught with it
All AI generated code is tainted with GPL/LGPL because the LLMs might have been taught with it
That is however stricter than what's actually legally necessary. It's just that the actual legal standard would require a court ruling to determine if you passed it, and everyone wants to avoid that. As a consequence there also aren't a lot of court cases to draw similarities to
I've heard this called in some circles "The curse of knowledge." The same thing applies to emulator developers, especially N64 developers (and now Nintendo emulator developers in general) after the Oman Archive and later Gigaleaks. There's an informal "If you read this, you can NEVER directly contribute to the development of that emulator, ever."
This comes to a head when a relatively unknown developer starts contributing oddly specific patches to an emulator.
This is actually harder standard than some people think.
The absolute clean room approaches in USA are there because they help short circuit a long lawsuit where a bigger corp can drag forever until you're broken.
not to mention that it's not a complete copy, because it has different behavior (the better performance)
but of course we have to check the code too
However, the copyright system has always be a sham to protect US capital interests. So I would be very surprised if this is actually ruled/enforced. And in any case american legislators can just change the law.