cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967
for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim, he is/was a prolific author, blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967
for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim, he is/was a prolific author, blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527
If the llm they used was trained on the original code, the result was not legally rewritten. To change licensing without buy in from all original authors, the new code must be fully original from spec. Ignoring the legal definitions for convenience opens the door for corporations to steal open source and copyleft materials and strip away the licensing requirements.
That’s a wild claim you’re making. So far, it looks like the code is completely new, and for this case, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. New code - new license.
If the LLM training data is based on / has used GPL code, this might set an interesting legal precedent.
If you write new code looking at the old code in another editor window, that’s likely derivative work. If you’ve never seen the original code and are looking only at the API, that’s likely not derivative work. Determining whether the code is ‘new’ is insufficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design
okay, you have to be able to prove the LLM didn’t learn off of the original source material. Because if it is, its dertivitve work, making it subject to LGPL.
LLM is not the copyright owner, it’s a developer of the LGPL package… IMHO, it’s an obvious violation of the original developer rights.
Well, I do not have to, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
That’s valid in a debate, but not quite how courts work?
I’m not a lawyer, just someone petty enough to read laws.
The discovery requests in the law suit will require yo turn over all training data. From there, it will be up to the AI makers to prove that it wasn’t used, if it was fed into training data. Which if it was open source, almost certainly was.
That as side.
Your making an equal claim that it wasn’t. With an equal amount of proof. So what your sating bears as much weight as the other person.
I have not made any claims, and I am not affiliated with this project in any way. I don’t know how this could be dealt with in court, or whether anyone will even bother with it.
You claim
https://vger.to/lemmy.ml/comment/24346212
That its completlt rewritten, with the implication that its not using the project as input.
So yes, you do should back that up
That’s not my claim, this is what the chardet maintainers say.
okay, repeating an unverified claim is better?