I just gave ChatGPT some GPL code and asked it to rewrite it in a way that accomplished the same purpose but doesn't include any of the original code. It worked. What's the point of restrictive licenses like the GPL now?
>>103211581There was never any point in them. Do you think Apple or Microsoft or Nvidia are going to _not_ use GPL code? What's going to happen? FSF is going to sue them? Fucking good luck.
>>103211597I don't know about those 3 in particular, but there are many known cases of firmware vendors that are wantonly flaunting the GPL by shipping modified GPL code in binary form only.Anybody can see they're doing it, they don't care.
>>103211581The legal underpinning is "derivative work". When I say legal I mean "explain it in court". You would be laughed out claiming you did not create a derivative work. Or perhaps you're saying>Well I *am* creating a derivative work, but this will help me not get caughtin which case, you're probably right, but why bother, really, just write your own code, or abide by the code's license. We're awash in a sea of shit, technology selection and security/backports/maintenence are a tangible value, just post patches against GPL codebase releases and provide value through means other than muh closed AI rewrite of GPL code
>>103211581Now ask him to rewrite Linux kernel code and we have a new kernel!
>>103211581You have no idea how happy this makes meWe finally have freedom back from the GPL tards.t BSD-chad
>>103211581AI is not just going to make GPL irrelevant. It will make ALL PROGRAMMERS irrelevant. People are just going to make their own programs using AI and there won't be a need for programmers. Womp womp. Looks like trying to think like a robot and going down this career path doesn't work out after all because you will be replaced by a literal robot. Sucks to be you. Guess it's time to kill yourself
>>103211581So that's why GNU bloat up their software so much - defense against chatbot pirates. Well played Stallman, you magnificent bastard.
>>103211665>just write your own codepackage mainfunc main() { fmt.Print("Hello World")}Now I can release this under GPL and you're not allowed to write this anymore?
package mainfunc main() { fmt.Print("Hello World")}
>>103211988Programmers will be the second to last job die die, just before scientists kick the bucketSorry to burst your bubble, you an artist or something? Voice actor, maybe? "Journalist"?
>we need to use copyrighted material but not pay for itNice try Altman but I don't think you will survive this.
>>103213551> 2/3 of the code is commentsThis is bait.
>>103213799>weird languageDon't worry kid, I won't ever want to write this. Is it go or some other faggotry?
>>103211647Nobody cares about freedom of software, just a vocal minority that will soon die
>>103211597Microsoft got caught using GPL code and got fucked by courts. They used BSD code on the networking stack of Windows XP and nothing happened. They didn't even contribute back because BSDfags are cuckolds.
>>103213799You'd be surprised how the law works in practice. Why is this still up? http://www.slutsofinstagram.com/
>>103215456>got fucked by courtssource? Also, copilot openly violates copylefted licenses and its doing fine.
>>103211597At every company I've ever worked at GPL code is an automatic no, even LGPL is considered too annoying and we only use it if its absolutely vital for software.
>>103211988> People are just going to make their own programs using AIMost people, even academics, don't know how to articulate unambiguously and precisely what they want their programs to do. Programmers are needed just to translate the requirements into useful prompts for the AI.
>>103211988At least until you want to make a program beyond a basic example, which is beyond the capabilities of ai.
>>103211597https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy>>103211665Code that has the same function as other code is not a derivative work. Copyright applies to expressions, not ideas.https://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise9.html
>>103211581GPL was never good, BSD model is the way to go despite what anyone says because you are free to monetize the technology yourself. None tangible goods are a race to the bottom
>>103211581turns out, trying to copyright math was always a fucking retarded, demented Jewish concept
What the fuck is wrong with you people? This is GOOD. The GPL was created because of the shit copyright laws that exist. Now that copyright can be easily bypassed, ALL SOFTWARE CAN BE FREE. STALMAN WON.
>>103220372Obviously what OP described wouldn't work if only the machine code was distributed
>>103218363Pumping code through ChatGPT is like pumping code through a compiler.The generated code is, in fact, derivative.
>>103220691In many cases the merger doctrine would apply thoughhttps://bytescare.com/blog/doctrine-of-merger-in-copyright
>>103220857Merger doctrine is not established case-law, nor is it an affirmative defense.Courts can and have rejected it, just like the "Sweat of the Brow" doctrine.
whats the point of including the license anyway unless youre a corporation with a legal team, none of my code on github has a license idgaf, i dont even know what the differences between those licenses are
>>103211581Are you fucking retarded?
>>103220972The merger doctrine exists because of the idea-expression distinction, which is part of the text of the Copyright Act
>>103211581>I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the plot of Star Wars but change the names of the charactersuh, congrats, George Lucas BTFO
>>103211647Firmware vendors such as who?
>>103221725The Copyright Act was amended to Software to steer programs away from Patents and towards Copyright. That is what the distinction is about, you can Patent ideas, Copyright expression.Congress expressed intent to reduce Patent burden with emphasis on Software Copyright, hence the Merger Doctrine is merely a guideline. It is not a defense in court.
>>103215456Microsoft literally embedded entire Linux into Windows and GPL couldn't do shit because they don't link against it lmao
>>103222096>That is what the distinction is about, you can Patent ideas, Copyright expression.That is the point I was making>Congress expressed intent to reduce Patent burden with emphasis on Software CopyrightNo they didn't. Patent law and copyright law are completely different.>the Merger Doctrine is merely a guidelineIt is the way the text of the law is implemented. Here's an example: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/abcd-1-8.pdf
>>103222209>No they didn't.Yes they did. Before they Amended the Copyright Act, most developers were filing for Software Patents, not Copyright.A large swath of computer programs that would have normally have been under Patent Law are instead under Copyright.Congress was pretty clear in deciding there are different considerations for Software.
>>103222256Copyright law protects the code itself. Patent law protects the process the code performs. They are completely different aspects.Also, patent protection for software got stronger at around the same time that copyright protection for software got stronger.
>>103222321APIs are Copyrightable is the current consensus. Oracle v. Google didn't overturn that.The boundary between "ideas" and "expression" is blurry in the software space.When AI takes GPL code as input, the output is necessarily derivative. Hence also subject to GPL. Just like binaries compiled by GPL code.
>>103221747>whats the point of including the license anyway unless youre a corporation with a legal team, none of my code on github has a license idgaf, i dont even know what the differences between those licenses aregeorge lucas never got sued fgor everything he ripped from Dune
>>103222351>APIs are Copyrightable is the current consensus. What do APIs have to do with this?>When AI takes GPL code as input, the output is necessarily derivative. Hence also subject to GPL.If the AI was paraphrasing, then yes. If the AI was looking at the process the code performs and independently generating new code that performs the same process, then no.
>>103222407>If the AI was looking at the process the code performs and independently generating new code that performs the same process, then no.GCC is a blackbox just like an LLM.Code generated by GCC is still derived from the source.The difference between "paraphrasing" and "independently generating new code" is not a valid legal defense when it is automated. Hence why software companies do "clean room" development to definitively develop independently.Verbatim copies of GPL code may not be used as input unless the generated code is also GPL.If instead of telling the LLM to rewrite the code, you were to describe what the code does and have it generate, never showing it verbatim code, that may be an acceptable "clean room" development.
>>103211581FOSStards have ruined an entire industry with their commie bullshit. Also the irony of all these FOSStards desperstely defending their bearded Jew on a closed source forum.
>>103215456>got fucked by courtsthis, and Microsoft doesn't exist any more. Let that be a lesson to all who wish to use GPL code without permission!!!
>>103211581AI training is massive copyright violation in the first place. It's not persecuted because it's done by megacorps with resourceful lobbyists and lawyers.
>>103211581What's the point of not using AGPL? Either someone cares about the license, or they don't. If they don't, it doesn't matter what license you use. If they do, AGPL stops them from leeching off you and gives everyone the most freedom.
>>103222908>GCC is a blackbox just like an LLM.Not really. People know how it works because it was programmed normally.>Code generated by GCC is still derived from the source.Yes; that is because it translates source code to machine code like how somebody would translate a book from English to French. That is not the same as copying the process the code embodies, which can only be protected by patent.>The difference between "paraphrasing" and "independently generating new code" is not a valid legal defense when it is automated.If somebody asked a human to find out what process certain code performs, then to write their own new independent code that also performs the same process, that would not be copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if the same thing is being done by a computer program.>>103224297Courts have said that "space-shifting" is fair use.
>>103226250>space-shiftingHow the hell is that related to AI training?
>>103227940AI training involves copying content and transforming it into a format usable for machine learning, for internal usage only
