1. File by file rewrite by AI (“change functions and vars a bit”)
2. One LLM writes a diff language (or pseudo code) version of each function that a diff LLM translates back into code and tests for input/output parity
The real danger is that this becomes increasingly undetectable in closed source code and can continue to sync with progress in the GPLed repo.
I don’t think any current license has a plausible defense against this sort of attack.
This would be different from the “API reimplementation” (see Google vs Oracle) because in that case, they’re not reusing implementation details, just the external contract.
so if someone tells the LLM to write it in WASM and also make it much faster and use it in a different commercial sector... then maybe
since 2023 the standard is much higher (arguably it was placed too low in 1993)
Not being a trained lawyer, or a Supreme Court justice, I cannot express a sensible position as to which side of the line this particular case falls. There are, however, enormously important legal precedents that pretty much all professional software developers use to guide their behaviour with respect to handling of copyrighted material (IBM vs. Ahmdall, and Google v. Oracle, particularly) that seem to suggest to us non-lawyers that this sort of reimplementation is legal. (Seek the advice of a real lawyer if it matters).
At that point our current understanding of open source protections … fails?
However most of the industry willfully violates the GPL without even trying such tricks anyway so there are certainly issues
If it can't and it costs a bunch of money to clean it up then same as always.
OTOH if what is actually happening is just that it is rewording the existing code so it looks different then it is still going to run afoul of copyright. You can't just rewrite harry potter with different words.
Note that even with Google vs oracle it was important they didn't need the actual code just the headers to get the function calls were enough. Yes it's true that the clean room isn't required but when you have an AI and you can show that it can't do it a second time without looking at the source (not just function declarations) that's pretty strong evidence.
Finally, how exactly do people think corporations rewrite portions of code that were contributed before re-licensing under a private license? It is ABSOLUTELY possible to rewrite code and relicense it.
Edit: Further, so these people think you contribute to a project, that project is beholden to your contribution permanently and it can never be excised? That seems like it would blatantly violate their original persons rights to exercise their own control of the code without those contributions, which is exactly the purpose of a rewrite.
(I have my doubts the rewrite is a reasonably defect free replacement)
The 5-day-old code in chardet has little to no value. The battle-tested years-old code that was casually flushed away to make room for it had value.
There are others, such as security vulnerability detection, support, & general maintenance.
I'll trade that stick for what GenAI can do for me, in a heartbeat.
The question, of course, is how this attitude -- even if perfectly rational at the moment -- will scale into the future. My guess is that pretty much all the original code that will ever need to be written has already been written, and will just need to be refactored, reshaped, and repurposed going forward. A robot's job, in other words. But that could turn out to be a mistaken guess.
What happened to sticking up for the underdogs? For the goodness of well-made software in itself, for itself? Isn't that what gave you all the stuff you have now? Don't you feel at least a little grateful, if maybe not obliged? Maybe we can start there?
It'll be OK.
And yes, it will be ok!
And fwiw, the idea he meant like literal people walking around being Uber is kinda nazi distortion anyway.
The whole point of the GPL is to encourage sharing! Making money off of GPL code is not encouraged by the text of the license, but it is encouraged by the people who wrote the licenses. Saying "don't share it" is antithetical to the goals of the free software movement.
I feel like everyone is getting distracted by protecting copyright, when in fact the point of the GPL is that we should all share and share alike. The GPL is a negotiation tactic, it is not an end unto itself. And curl, I might note, is permissively licensed so there's no need for a clean room reimplementation. If someone's rewriting it I'm very interested to hear why and I hope they share their work. I'm mostly indifferent to how they license it.
30 years of experience in the tech industry taught me that this will get you nowhere. Nobody will reciprocate generosity or loyalty without an underlying financial incentive.
> What happened to sticking up for the underdogs?
Underdogs get SPACed out and dump the employees that got them there.