> Licensed code, when modified, must be released under the same LGPL license. Their claim that it is a "complete rewrite" is irrelevant, since they had ample exposure to the originally licensed code (i.e. this is not a "clean room" implementation).
I don't think that the second sentence is a valid claim per se, it depends on what this "rewritten code" actually looks like (IANAL).
Edit: my understanding of "clean room implementation" is that it is a good defence to a copyright infrigement claim because there cannot be infringement if you don't know the original work. However it does not mean that NOT "clean room implementation" implies infrigement, it's just that it is potentially harder to defend against a claim if the original work was known.
If the code is different but API compatible, Google Java vs Oracle Java case shows that if the implementation is different enough, it can be considered a new implementation. Clean room or not.
As part of my consulting, i've stumbled upon this issue in a commercial context.
A SaaS company who has the mobile apps of their platform open source approached me with the following concern.
One of their engineers was able to recreate their platform by letting Claude Code reverse engineer their Apps and the Web-Frontend, creating an API-compatible backend that is functionally identical.
Took him a week after work. It's not as stable, the unit-tests need more work, the code has some unnecessary duplication, hosting isn't fully figured out, but the end-to-end test-harness is even more stable than their own.
"How do we protect ourselves against a competitor doing this?"
> "How do we protect ourselves against a competitor doing this?"
You can try patenting; but not after the fact. Copyright won't help you here. You can't copyright an algorithm or idea, just a specific form or implementation of it. And there is a lot of legal history about what is and isn't a derivative work here. Some companies try to forbid reverse engineering in their licensing. But of course that might be a bit hard to enforce, or prove. And it doesn't work for OSS stuff in any case.
Stuff like this has been common practice in the industry for decades. Most good software ideas get picked apart, copied and re-implemented. IBM's bios for the first PC quickly got reverse engineered and then other companies started making IBM compatible PCs. IBM never open sourced their bios and they probably did not intend for that to happen. But that didn't matter. Likewise there were several PC compatible DOS variants that each could (mostly) run the same applications. MS never open sourced DOS either. There are countless examples of people figuring out how stuff works and then creating independent implementations. All that is perfectly legal.
> "How do we protect ourselves against a competitor doing this?"
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, as someone launching a niche b2b SaaS. The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is: have more capital than anyone for distribution.
Is there any other answer to this? I hope so, as we are not in the well-capitalized category, but we have friendly user traction. I think the only possible way to succeed is to quietly secure some big contracts.
I had been hoping to bootstrap, but how can we in this new "code is cheap" world? I know it's always been like this, but it is even worse now, isn't it?
Sounds like they didn’t build a proper clean room setup: the agent writing the code could see the original code.
Question: if they had built one using AI teams in both “rooms”, one writing a spec the other implementing, would that be fine? You’d need to verify spec doesn’t include source code, but that’s easy enough.
It seems to mostly follow the IBM-era precedent. However, since the model probably had the original code in its training data, maybe not? Maybe valid for closed source project but not open-source? Interesting question.
I think Mark Pilgrim misrepresents the legal situation somewhat: The AI rewrite does not legally need to be a clean room implementation (whatever exactly that would even mean here).
That is just the easiest way to disambiguate the legal situation (i.e. the most reliable approach to prevent it from being considered a derivative work by a court).
I wonder if LLMs will push the industry towards protecting their IP with patents like the other branches of engineering rather than copyright. If you patent a general idea of how your software works then no rewrite will be able to lift this protection.
Impossible to code inspect and verify. Someone else commented 'smells like a supply chain attack' and while I'm sure it's not intended to be, there is no way to verify. And who believes, in half a million lines of code, no bugs have been introduced?
I feel like the author is missing a huge point here by fighting this. The entire reason why GPL and any other copyleft license exists in the first place is to ensure that the rights of a user to modify, etc a work cannot be ever taken away. Before, relicensing as MIT - or any other fully permissive license - would've meant open doors to apply restrictions going forward, but with AI this is now a non-issue. Code is now very cheap. So the way I see this, anyone who is for copyleft should be embracing AI-created things as not being copyrightable (or a rewrite being relicensable) hard*.
If I release blub 1.0.0 under GPL, you cannot fork it and add features and release that closed-source, but I can certainly do that as I have ownership. I can't stop others continuing to use 1.0.0 and develop it further under the GPL, but what happens to my own 1.1.0 onwards is up to me. I can even sell the rights to use it closed-source.
Well put. It seems like a lot of people have tunnel vision on this. It's going to take a while for people to realize that copyright is obsolete, especially in its current form.
Isn't the real issue here that tons of projects that depend on the "chardet" now drag in some crappy still unverified AI slop? AI forgery poisoning, IMHO.
Why does this new project here needed to replace the original like that in this dishonourable way? The proper way would have been to create a proper new project.
Note: even Python's own pip drags this in as dependency it seems (hopefully they'll stick to a proper version)
The drop"-in" compatibility claims are also just wrong? I ran it on the old test suite from 6.0 (which is completely absent now), and quickly checking:
- the outputs, even if correctly deduced, are often incompatible: "utf-16be" turns into "utf-16-be", "UTF-16" turns into "utf-16-le" etc. FWIW, the old version appears to have been a bit of a mess (having had "UTF-16", "utf-16be" and "utf-16le" among its outputs) but I still wouldn't call the new version _compatible_,
- similarly, all `ascii` turn into `Windows-1252`
- sometimes it really does appear more accurate,
- but sometimes it appears to flip between wider families of closely related encodings, like one SHIFT_JIS test (confidence 0.99) turns into cp932 (confidence 0.34), or the whole family of tests that were determined as gb18030 (chinese) are now sometimes determined as gb2312 (the older subset of gb18030), and one even as cp1006, which AFAIK is just wrong.
As for performance claims, they appear not entirely false - analyzing all files took 20s, versus 150s with v6.0. However, looks like the library sometimes takes 2s to lazy initialize something, which means that if one uses `chardetect` CLI instead of Python API, you'll pay this cost each time and get several times slower instead.
Oh, and this "Negligible import memory (96 B)" is just silly and obviously wrong.
The argument that a rewrite is a copyright violation because they are familiar with the code base is not fully sound.
"Insider Knowledge" is not relevant for copyright law. That is more in the space of patent law then copyright law.
Or else a artist having seen a picture of a sunset over an empty ocean wouldn't be allowed to pain another sunset over an empty ocean as people could claim copyright violation.
Through what is a violation is, if you place the code side by side and try to circumvent copyright law by just rephrasing the exact same code.
This also means that if you give an AI access to a code base and tell it to produce a new code base doing the same (or similar) it will most likely be ruled as copyright violation as it's pretty much a side by side rewriting.
But you very much can rewrite a project under new license even if you have in depth knowledge. IFF you don't have the old project open/look at it while doing so. Rewrite it from scratch. And don't just rewrite the same code from memory, but instead write fully new code producing the same/similar outputs.
Through while doing so is not per-se illegal, it is legally very attackable. As you will have a hard time defending such a rewrite from copyright claims (except if it's internally so completely different that it stops any claims of "being a copy", e.g. you use complete different algorithms, architecture, etc. to produce the same results in a different way).
In the end while technically "legally hard to defend" != "illegal", for companies it's most
times best to treat it the same.
> "Insider Knowledge" is not relevant for copyright law. That is more in the space of patent law then copyright law.
On the contrary. Except for discussions about punitive damages and so on, insider knowledge or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to patent law. If company A has a patent on something, they can assert said patent against company B regardless of whether any person in company B had ever seen or heard of company A and their patent. Company B could have a legal trail proving they invented their product that matches the patent from scratch with no outside knowledge, and that they had been doing this before company A had even filed their patent, and it wouldn't matter at all - company A, by virtue of filing and being granted a patent, has a legal monopoly on that invention.
In contrast, for copyright the right is intrinsically tied to the origin of a work. If you create a digital image that is entirely identical at the pixel level with a copyrighted work, and you can prove that you had never seen that original copyrighted work and you created your image completely independently, then you have not broken anyone's copyright and are free to sell copies of your own work. Even more, you have your own copyright over your own work, and can assert it over anyone that tries to copy your work without permission, despite an identical work existing and being owned by someone else.
Now, purely in principle this would remain true even if you had seen the other work. But in reality, it's impossible to convince any jury that you happened to produce, entirely out of your own creativity, an original work that is identical to a work you had seen before.
> But you very much can rewrite a project under new license even if you have in depth knowledge. IFF you don't have the old project open/look at it while doing so.
No, this is very much false. You will never be able to win a court case on this, as any significant similarity between your work and the original will be considered a copyright violation, per the preponderance of the evidence.
Hate to be "that guy" but in a corrupt legal system, which ours is, none of this matters. Who has the influence and dollars to make the decision theirs is all that matters.
I believe that Pilgrim here does not understand very well how copyright works:
> Their claim that it is a "complete rewrite" is irrelevant, since they had ample exposure to the originally licensed code
This is simply not true. The reason why the "clean room" concept exists is precisely since actually the law recognizes that independent implementations ARE possibile. The "clean room" thing is a trick to make the litigation simpler, it is NOT required that you are not exposed to the original code. For instance, Linux was implemented even if Linus and other devs where well aware of Unix internals. The law really mandates this: does the new code copy something that was in the original one? The clean room trick makes it simpler to say, it is not possible, if there are similar things it is just by accident. But it is NOT a requirement.
If you let an LLM merely rephrase the codebase, that's like letting it rephrase the Harry Potter novels. Which, I'm pretty sure, would still be considered a copy under copyright law, not an original work, despite not copying any text verbatim.
Neither does the maintainer that claims a mechanical test of structural similarities can prove anything either waybwith regard to whether legally it is a derivative work (or even a mechnaical copy without the requisite new creative work to be a derivative work.)
And then Pilgrim is again wrong by saying that the use of Claude definitively makes it a derivative work because of the inability to prove it the work in question did not influence the neurons involved.
It is all dueling lay misreadings of copyright law, but it is also an area where the actual specific applicable law, on any level specific enough to cleanly apply, isn’t all that clear.
The expected functionality of chardet (detect the unicode encoding) is kind of fixed - apart from edge cases and new additions to unicode, you'd expect the original and new implementations to largely pass the same tests, and have a lot of similar code such as for "does this start with a BOM".
The fact that the JPlag shows such a low %overlap for an implementation of "the same interface" is convincing evidence for me that it's not just plagiarised.
Given that LLMs were trained on the repository directly, it's not just the case that anything made by the LLM is a derivative work, the LLM ITSELF is a derivative work. After all, they all are substantially based on GPL licensed works by others. The standard courts have always used for "substantially based" by the way, is the ability to extract from the new work anything bigger than an excerpt of the original work.
So convincing evidence, by historical standards, that ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot AND Claude are all derivative works of the GPL linux kernel can be gotten simply by asking "give me struct sk_buff", then keep asking until you're out of the headers (say, ask how a network driver uses it).
That means if courts are honest (and they never are when it comes to GPL) OpenAI, Google and Anthropic would be forced to release ALL materials needed to duplicate their models "at cost". Given how LLMs work that would include all models, code, AND training data. After all, that is the contract these companies entered into when using the GPL licensed linux kernel.
But of course, to courts copyright applies to you when Microsoft demands it ($30000 per violation PLUS stopping the use of the offending file/torrent/software/... because such measures are apparently justified for downloading a $50 piece of software), it does not apply to big companies when the rules would destroy them.
The last time this was talked about someone pointed out that Microsoft "stole", as they call it, the software to do product keys. They were convicted for doing that, and the judge even increased damages because of Microsoft's behavior in the case.
But there is no way in hell you'll ever get justice from the courts in this. In fact courts have already decided that AI training is fair use on 2 conditions:
1) that the companies acquired the material itself without violating copyright. Of course it has already been proven that this is not the case for any of them (they scraped it without permission, which has been declared illegal again and again in the file sharing trials)
2) that the models refuse to reproduce copyrighted works. Now go to your favorite model and ask "Give me some code written by Linus Torvalds": not a peep about copyright violation.
... but it does not matter, and it won't matter. Courts are making excuses to allow LLM models to violate any copyright, the excuse does not work, does not convince rational people, but it just doesn't matter.
But of course, if you thought that just because they cheat against the law to make what they're already doing legal, they'll do the same for you, help you violate copyright, right? After all, that's how they work! Ok now go and ask:
"Make me an image of Mickey Mouse peeling a cheese banana under an angry moon"
And you'll get a reply "YOU EVIL COPYRIGHT VILLAIN". Despite, of course, Mickey Mouse no longer being covered under copyright!
And to really get angry, find your favorite indie artist, and ask to make something based on their work. Even "Make an MC Escher style painting of Sonic the Hedgehog" ... even that doesn't count as copyright violation, only the truly gigantic companies deserve copyright protection.
The LLM would, under that argument, be a transformative derivative work, which has important fair use implications (that don’t exist in the chardet case)…
> Given that LLMs were trained on the repository directly, it's not just the case that anything made by the LLM is a derivative work, the LLM ITSELF is a derivative work.
That’s not how “derivative works”, well, work.
First of all, a thing can only be a derivative work if it is itself an original work of authorship.
Otherwise, it might be (or contain) a complete copy or a partial copy of one or more source works (which, if it doesn't fall into a copyright exception, would still be a at least a potential violation), but its not a derivative work.
I think this is a bit too broad. There are actually three possible cases.
When there is similar code, the only defense possible to prove that you have not copied the original is to show that your process is a clean room re-implementation.
If the code is completely different, then clean room or not is indeed irrelevant. The only way the author can claim that you violated their copyright despite no apparent similarity is for them to have proof you followed some kind of mechanical process for generating the new code based on the old one, such as using an LLM with the old code as input prompt (TBD, completely unsettled: what if the old code is part of the training set, but was not part of the input?) - the burden of proof is on them to show that the dissimilarity is only apparent.
In realistic cases, you will have a mix of similar and dissimilar portions, and portions where the similarity is questionable. Each of these will need to be analyzed separately - and it's very likely that all the similar portions will need to be re-written again if you can't prove that they were not copied directly or from memory from the original, even if they represent a very small part of the work overall. Even if you wrote a 10k page book, if you copied one whole page verbatim from another book, you will be liable for that page, and the author may force you to take it out.
The burden of proof is completely uncharted when it comes to LLMs. Burden of proof is assigned by court precedent, not the Copyright Act itself (in US law). Meaning, a court looking at a case like this could (should) see the use of an LLM trained on the copyrighted work as a distinguishing factor that shifts the burden to the defense. As a matter of public policy, it's not great if infringers can use the poor accountability properties of LLMs to hide from the consequences of illegally redistributing copyrighted works.
On the other hand, as a matter of public policy, nobody should be able to claim copyright protection for the process of detecting whether a string is correctly formed unicode using code that in no material way resembles the original. This is not rocket science.
1. Initially, when you claim that someone has violated your copyright, the burden is on you to make a convincing claim on why the work represents a copy or derivative of your work.
2. If the work doesn't obviously resemble your original, which is the case here, then the burden is still on you to prove that either
(a), it is actually very similar in some fundamental way that makes it a derived work, such as being a translation or a summary of your work
or (b), it was produced following some kind of mechanical process and is not a result of the original human creativity of its authors
Now, in regards to item 2b, there are two possible uses of LLMs that are fundamentally different.
One is actually very clear cut: if I give an LLM a prompt consisting of the original work + a request to create a new work, then the new work is quite clearly a derived work of the original, just as much as a zip file of a work is a derived work.
The other is very much not yet settled: if I give an LLM a prompt asking for it to produce a piece of code that achieves the same goal as the original work, and the LLM had in its training set the original work, is the output of the LLM a derived work of the original (and possibly of other parts of the training set)? Of course, we'll only consider the case where the output doesn't resemble the original in any obvious way (i.e. the LLM is not producing a verbatim copy from memory). This question is novel, and I believe it is being currently tested in court for some cases, such as the NYT's case against OpenAI.
Regardless of the legal interpretations, I think it's very worrying if an automated AI rewrite of GPLed code (or any code for that matter) could somehow be used to circumvent the original license. That kinda takes out the one stick the open source community has to force soulless multinationals to contribute back to the open source projects they use.
True, but if that is found to be how it works then an automated AI rewrite of closed-source code is just as unbound by the original license. Which is a much bigger win for the open-source community, since any closed-source software can become the inspiration for an open-source project.
If the AI is good enough to truly implement the whole thing to a similar level of reliability without copying it then who cares. At that point you should be able to decompile any program you want and find enough information inside that an AI can go write a similar quality program from the vague information about the call graph. We've transcended copyright in computer code.
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.
It’s less worry to me given that a year ago this would have been exceptionally harder to do, requiring a lot more time and effort and been more costly. A year from now it will be even easier. All of this means that one aspect of the mission that brought about the need for a license like this is now fundamentally easier whether or not the license is used. There can be less worry about software locked up in closed source overall.
It's not clear at all why the current maintainers wanted/needed this re-licensing. I guess that their employee, Monarch Money, wants to use derivative work in their application without releasing the changes?
It was already LGPL, perfect for a library, not GPL.
AFAIK this was not a clean room reimplementation. But since it was rewritten by hand, into a different language, with not just a different internal design but a different API, I could easily buy that chardetng doesn't infringe while Python chardet 7 does.
The copyright argument is a sidetrack both in the PR comment thread and here. The issue opened claims the new code is based on the old code, and therefore derivative, and therefore must be offered in a modified version of the source code under the previous license, LGPL. The complaint is the maintainers violated the terms of LGPL, that they must prove no derivation from the original code to legally claim this is a legal new version without the LGPL license. Claim is if they or Claude read the old code (or of course directly use any of it) it is a license violation. “… in the release 7.0.0, the maintainers claim to have the right to “relicense” the project. They have no such right; doing so is an explicit violation of the LGPL. Licensed code, when modified, must be released under the same LGPL license. Their claim that it is a "complete rewrite" is irrelevant, since they had ample exposure to the originally licensed code (i.e. this is not a "clean room" implementation).“ By this reasoning, I am genuinely asking (I’m not a license expert) if a valid clean room rewrite is possible, because at a minimum you would need a spec describing all behavior, which ses to require ample exposure to the original to be sufficiently precise.
> Unfortunately, because the code that chardet was originally based on was LGPL, we don't really have a way to relicense it. Believe me, if we could, I would. There was talk of chardet being added to the standard library, and that was deemed impossible because of being unable to change the license.
So the person that did the rewrite knew this was a dive into dangerous water.
That's so disrespectful.
83 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 91.9 ms ] threadI don't think that the second sentence is a valid claim per se, it depends on what this "rewritten code" actually looks like (IANAL).
Edit: my understanding of "clean room implementation" is that it is a good defence to a copyright infrigement claim because there cannot be infringement if you don't know the original work. However it does not mean that NOT "clean room implementation" implies infrigement, it's just that it is potentially harder to defend against a claim if the original work was known.
If the code is different but API compatible, Google Java vs Oracle Java case shows that if the implementation is different enough, it can be considered a new implementation. Clean room or not.
Be really careful who you give your projects keys to, folks!
One of their engineers was able to recreate their platform by letting Claude Code reverse engineer their Apps and the Web-Frontend, creating an API-compatible backend that is functionally identical.
Took him a week after work. It's not as stable, the unit-tests need more work, the code has some unnecessary duplication, hosting isn't fully figured out, but the end-to-end test-harness is even more stable than their own.
"How do we protect ourselves against a competitor doing this?"
Noodling on this at the moment.
That's the neat thing: you don't!
You can try patenting; but not after the fact. Copyright won't help you here. You can't copyright an algorithm or idea, just a specific form or implementation of it. And there is a lot of legal history about what is and isn't a derivative work here. Some companies try to forbid reverse engineering in their licensing. But of course that might be a bit hard to enforce, or prove. And it doesn't work for OSS stuff in any case.
Stuff like this has been common practice in the industry for decades. Most good software ideas get picked apart, copied and re-implemented. IBM's bios for the first PC quickly got reverse engineered and then other companies started making IBM compatible PCs. IBM never open sourced their bios and they probably did not intend for that to happen. But that didn't matter. Likewise there were several PC compatible DOS variants that each could (mostly) run the same applications. MS never open sourced DOS either. There are countless examples of people figuring out how stuff works and then creating independent implementations. All that is perfectly legal.
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, as someone launching a niche b2b SaaS. The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is: have more capital than anyone for distribution.
Is there any other answer to this? I hope so, as we are not in the well-capitalized category, but we have friendly user traction. I think the only possible way to succeed is to quietly secure some big contracts.
I had been hoping to bootstrap, but how can we in this new "code is cheap" world? I know it's always been like this, but it is even worse now, isn't it?
Question: if they had built one using AI teams in both “rooms”, one writing a spec the other implementing, would that be fine? You’d need to verify spec doesn’t include source code, but that’s easy enough.
It seems to mostly follow the IBM-era precedent. However, since the model probably had the original code in its training data, maybe not? Maybe valid for closed source project but not open-source? Interesting question.
What is this recent (clanker-fueled?) obsession to give everything fancy computer-y names with high numbers?
It's not a '12 stage pipeline', it's just an algorithm.
All AI generated code is tainted with GPL/LGPL because the LLMs might have been taught with it
That is just the easiest way to disambiguate the legal situation (i.e. the most reliable approach to prevent it from being considered a derivative work by a court).
I'm curious how this is gonna go.
“chardet 7.0 is a ground-up, MIT-licensed rewrite of chardet. Same package name, same public API — drop-in replacement for chardet 5.x/6.x”
Do people not write anymore?
If I release blub 1.0.0 under GPL, you cannot fork it and add features and release that closed-source, but I can certainly do that as I have ownership. I can't stop others continuing to use 1.0.0 and develop it further under the GPL, but what happens to my own 1.1.0 onwards is up to me. I can even sell the rights to use it closed-source.
Why does this new project here needed to replace the original like that in this dishonourable way? The proper way would have been to create a proper new project.
Note: even Python's own pip drags this in as dependency it seems (hopefully they'll stick to a proper version)
- the outputs, even if correctly deduced, are often incompatible: "utf-16be" turns into "utf-16-be", "UTF-16" turns into "utf-16-le" etc. FWIW, the old version appears to have been a bit of a mess (having had "UTF-16", "utf-16be" and "utf-16le" among its outputs) but I still wouldn't call the new version _compatible_,
- similarly, all `ascii` turn into `Windows-1252`
- sometimes it really does appear more accurate,
- but sometimes it appears to flip between wider families of closely related encodings, like one SHIFT_JIS test (confidence 0.99) turns into cp932 (confidence 0.34), or the whole family of tests that were determined as gb18030 (chinese) are now sometimes determined as gb2312 (the older subset of gb18030), and one even as cp1006, which AFAIK is just wrong.
As for performance claims, they appear not entirely false - analyzing all files took 20s, versus 150s with v6.0. However, looks like the library sometimes takes 2s to lazy initialize something, which means that if one uses `chardetect` CLI instead of Python API, you'll pay this cost each time and get several times slower instead.
Oh, and this "Negligible import memory (96 B)" is just silly and obviously wrong.
"Insider Knowledge" is not relevant for copyright law. That is more in the space of patent law then copyright law.
Or else a artist having seen a picture of a sunset over an empty ocean wouldn't be allowed to pain another sunset over an empty ocean as people could claim copyright violation.
Through what is a violation is, if you place the code side by side and try to circumvent copyright law by just rephrasing the exact same code.
This also means that if you give an AI access to a code base and tell it to produce a new code base doing the same (or similar) it will most likely be ruled as copyright violation as it's pretty much a side by side rewriting.
But you very much can rewrite a project under new license even if you have in depth knowledge. IFF you don't have the old project open/look at it while doing so. Rewrite it from scratch. And don't just rewrite the same code from memory, but instead write fully new code producing the same/similar outputs.
Through while doing so is not per-se illegal, it is legally very attackable. As you will have a hard time defending such a rewrite from copyright claims (except if it's internally so completely different that it stops any claims of "being a copy", e.g. you use complete different algorithms, architecture, etc. to produce the same results in a different way).
In the end while technically "legally hard to defend" != "illegal", for companies it's most times best to treat it the same.
On the contrary. Except for discussions about punitive damages and so on, insider knowledge or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to patent law. If company A has a patent on something, they can assert said patent against company B regardless of whether any person in company B had ever seen or heard of company A and their patent. Company B could have a legal trail proving they invented their product that matches the patent from scratch with no outside knowledge, and that they had been doing this before company A had even filed their patent, and it wouldn't matter at all - company A, by virtue of filing and being granted a patent, has a legal monopoly on that invention.
In contrast, for copyright the right is intrinsically tied to the origin of a work. If you create a digital image that is entirely identical at the pixel level with a copyrighted work, and you can prove that you had never seen that original copyrighted work and you created your image completely independently, then you have not broken anyone's copyright and are free to sell copies of your own work. Even more, you have your own copyright over your own work, and can assert it over anyone that tries to copy your work without permission, despite an identical work existing and being owned by someone else.
Now, purely in principle this would remain true even if you had seen the other work. But in reality, it's impossible to convince any jury that you happened to produce, entirely out of your own creativity, an original work that is identical to a work you had seen before.
> But you very much can rewrite a project under new license even if you have in depth knowledge. IFF you don't have the old project open/look at it while doing so.
No, this is very much false. You will never be able to win a court case on this, as any significant similarity between your work and the original will be considered a copyright violation, per the preponderance of the evidence.
> Their claim that it is a "complete rewrite" is irrelevant, since they had ample exposure to the originally licensed code
This is simply not true. The reason why the "clean room" concept exists is precisely since actually the law recognizes that independent implementations ARE possibile. The "clean room" thing is a trick to make the litigation simpler, it is NOT required that you are not exposed to the original code. For instance, Linux was implemented even if Linus and other devs where well aware of Unix internals. The law really mandates this: does the new code copy something that was in the original one? The clean room trick makes it simpler to say, it is not possible, if there are similar things it is just by accident. But it is NOT a requirement.
The AI was trained with the code, so the complete rewrite is tainted and not a clean room. I can't believe this would need spelling out.
And then Pilgrim is again wrong by saying that the use of Claude definitively makes it a derivative work because of the inability to prove it the work in question did not influence the neurons involved.
It is all dueling lay misreadings of copyright law, but it is also an area where the actual specific applicable law, on any level specific enough to cleanly apply, isn’t all that clear.
The expected functionality of chardet (detect the unicode encoding) is kind of fixed - apart from edge cases and new additions to unicode, you'd expect the original and new implementations to largely pass the same tests, and have a lot of similar code such as for "does this start with a BOM".
The fact that the JPlag shows such a low %overlap for an implementation of "the same interface" is convincing evidence for me that it's not just plagiarised.
So convincing evidence, by historical standards, that ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot AND Claude are all derivative works of the GPL linux kernel can be gotten simply by asking "give me struct sk_buff", then keep asking until you're out of the headers (say, ask how a network driver uses it).
That means if courts are honest (and they never are when it comes to GPL) OpenAI, Google and Anthropic would be forced to release ALL materials needed to duplicate their models "at cost". Given how LLMs work that would include all models, code, AND training data. After all, that is the contract these companies entered into when using the GPL licensed linux kernel.
But of course, to courts copyright applies to you when Microsoft demands it ($30000 per violation PLUS stopping the use of the offending file/torrent/software/... because such measures are apparently justified for downloading a $50 piece of software), it does not apply to big companies when the rules would destroy them.
The last time this was talked about someone pointed out that Microsoft "stole", as they call it, the software to do product keys. They were convicted for doing that, and the judge even increased damages because of Microsoft's behavior in the case.
But there is no way in hell you'll ever get justice from the courts in this. In fact courts have already decided that AI training is fair use on 2 conditions:
1) that the companies acquired the material itself without violating copyright. Of course it has already been proven that this is not the case for any of them (they scraped it without permission, which has been declared illegal again and again in the file sharing trials)
2) that the models refuse to reproduce copyrighted works. Now go to your favorite model and ask "Give me some code written by Linus Torvalds": not a peep about copyright violation.
... but it does not matter, and it won't matter. Courts are making excuses to allow LLM models to violate any copyright, the excuse does not work, does not convince rational people, but it just doesn't matter.
But of course, if you thought that just because they cheat against the law to make what they're already doing legal, they'll do the same for you, help you violate copyright, right? After all, that's how they work! Ok now go and ask:
"Make me an image of Mickey Mouse peeling a cheese banana under an angry moon"
And you'll get a reply "YOU EVIL COPYRIGHT VILLAIN". Despite, of course, Mickey Mouse no longer being covered under copyright!
And to really get angry, find your favorite indie artist, and ask to make something based on their work. Even "Make an MC Escher style painting of Sonic the Hedgehog" ... even that doesn't count as copyright violation, only the truly gigantic companies deserve copyright protection.
That’s not how “derivative works”, well, work.
First of all, a thing can only be a derivative work if it is itself an original work of authorship.
Otherwise, it might be (or contain) a complete copy or a partial copy of one or more source works (which, if it doesn't fall into a copyright exception, would still be a at least a potential violation), but its not a derivative work.
When there is similar code, the only defense possible to prove that you have not copied the original is to show that your process is a clean room re-implementation.
If the code is completely different, then clean room or not is indeed irrelevant. The only way the author can claim that you violated their copyright despite no apparent similarity is for them to have proof you followed some kind of mechanical process for generating the new code based on the old one, such as using an LLM with the old code as input prompt (TBD, completely unsettled: what if the old code is part of the training set, but was not part of the input?) - the burden of proof is on them to show that the dissimilarity is only apparent.
In realistic cases, you will have a mix of similar and dissimilar portions, and portions where the similarity is questionable. Each of these will need to be analyzed separately - and it's very likely that all the similar portions will need to be re-written again if you can't prove that they were not copied directly or from memory from the original, even if they represent a very small part of the work overall. Even if you wrote a 10k page book, if you copied one whole page verbatim from another book, you will be liable for that page, and the author may force you to take it out.
1. Initially, when you claim that someone has violated your copyright, the burden is on you to make a convincing claim on why the work represents a copy or derivative of your work.
2. If the work doesn't obviously resemble your original, which is the case here, then the burden is still on you to prove that either
(a), it is actually very similar in some fundamental way that makes it a derived work, such as being a translation or a summary of your work
or (b), it was produced following some kind of mechanical process and is not a result of the original human creativity of its authors
Now, in regards to item 2b, there are two possible uses of LLMs that are fundamentally different.
One is actually very clear cut: if I give an LLM a prompt consisting of the original work + a request to create a new work, then the new work is quite clearly a derived work of the original, just as much as a zip file of a work is a derived work.
The other is very much not yet settled: if I give an LLM a prompt asking for it to produce a piece of code that achieves the same goal as the original work, and the LLM had in its training set the original work, is the output of the LLM a derived work of the original (and possibly of other parts of the training set)? Of course, we'll only consider the case where the output doesn't resemble the original in any obvious way (i.e. the LLM is not producing a verbatim copy from memory). This question is novel, and I believe it is being currently tested in court for some cases, such as the NYT's case against OpenAI.
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.
Seems like there is no real point, just vibes.
[0] https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/36
[1] https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4...
AFAIK this was not a clean room reimplementation. But since it was rewritten by hand, into a different language, with not just a different internal design but a different API, I could easily buy that chardetng doesn't infringe while Python chardet 7 does.
Pin your dependency versions people! With hashes at this point, cant trust anybody out here.
https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/blob/3d963aebcd533da278f086a3e...
The interesting part is that the original author is against it but some people claims it could be a rewrite and not a derivative work.
I don't know the legal basis of everything but it's definitly not morally correct toward the original author.
> Unfortunately, because the code that chardet was originally based on was LGPL, we don't really have a way to relicense it. Believe me, if we could, I would. There was talk of chardet being added to the standard library, and that was deemed impossible because of being unable to change the license.
So the person that did the rewrite knew this was a dive into dangerous water. That's so disrespectful.