That why I carved it out to just the specs. If they can be read as "facts", then the new code is not derived but arrived at with TTD.

The thesis I propose is that tests are more akin to facts, or can be stated as facts, and facts are not copyright-able. That's what makes this case interesting.

▲

nairboon 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I assumed that "tests" refers to a program too, which in this example is likely GPL. Thus GPL would stick already on the AI-rewrite of GPL test code.

If "tests" should mean a proper specification let's say some IETF RFC of a protocol, then that would be different.

	▲	anilgulecha 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I had not specified in my original comment. But in the SOTA LLM world code/text boundary is so blurry, so as to be non-existent.