I don't think it's fair use, but everyone on Earth disagree with me. So even with the standard default licence that prohibits absolutely everything, the humanity-1 consider it fair use.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

justin_murray 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honest question: why don’t you think it is fair use?

I can see how it pushes the boundary, but I can’t lay out logic that it’s not. The code has been publish for the public to see. I’m always allowed to read it, remember it, tell my friends about it. Certainly, this is what the author hoped I would do. Otherwise, wouldn’t they have kept it to themselves?

These agents are just doing a more sophisticated, faster version of that same act.

▲

gus_massa an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Some project like Wine forbids you to contribute if you ever have seen the source of MS Windows [1]. The meatball inside your head is tainted.

I don't remember the exact case now, but someone was cloning a program (Lotus123 -> Quatro or Excel???). They printed every single screen and made a team write a full specification in English. Later another separate team look at the screenshots and text and reimplement it. Apparently meatballs can get tainted, but the plain English text loophole was safe enough.

[1] From https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Developer-FAQ#wh...

> Who can't contribute to Wine?

> Some people cannot contribute to Wine because of potential copyright violation. This would be anyone who has seen Microsoft Windows source code (stolen, under an NDA, disassembled, or otherwise). There are some exceptions for the source code of add-on components (ATL, MFC, msvcrt); see the next question.

▲

mixedbit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Before LLMs programmers had pretty good intuition what GPL license allowed for. It is of course clear that you cannot release a closed source program with GPL code integrated into it. I think it was also quite clear, that you cannot legally incorporate GPL code into such a program, by making changes here and there, renaming some stuff, and moving things around, but this is pretty much what LLMs are doing. When humans do it intentionally, it is violation of the license, when it is automated and done on a huge scale, is it really fair use?

▲

WithinReason an hour ago | parent [-]

> this is pretty much what LLMs are doing

I think this is the part where we disagree. Have you used LLMs, or is this based on something you read?

▲

mixedbit an hour ago | parent [-]

Do you honestly believe there are people on this board who haven't used LLMs? Ridiculing someone you disagree with is a poor way to make an argument.

	▲	WithinReason 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		lots of people on this board are philosophically opposed to them so it was a reasonable question, especially in light of your description of them