> 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.

▲

bo1024 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that (while the ethics of this are a different issue) the copyright question is not obviously clear-cut. Though IANAL.

As the LGPL says:

> A "work based on the Library" means either the Library or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".)

Is v7.0.0 a [derivative work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work)? It seems to depend on the details of the source code (implementing the same API is not copyright infringement).

▲

jerven 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was wondering how the existing case law of translated works, from one language to an other works here. It would at suggest that this is an infringement of the license especially because of the lack of creativity. But IANAL and of course no idea of applicable case law.

▲

_ache_ 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Exposure" means here, I think, that they feed the 6.X code version to Claude.

▲

Radle 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the ai copy pasted the existing project. How can such a procedure not fall under copyright?

Especially now that ai can do this for any kind of intellectual property, like images, books or sourcecode. If judges would allow an ai rewrite to count as an original creation, copyright as we know it completely ends world wide.

Instead whats more likely is that no one is gonna buy that shit

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>the ai copy pasted the existing project.

The change log says the implementation is completely different, not a copy paste. Is that wrong?

>Internal architecture is completely different (probers replaced by pipeline stages). Only the public API is preserved.

▲

fzeroracer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's up to them to prove that a) the original implementation was not part of whatever data set said AI used and b) that the engineers in question did not use the original as a basis.

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's up to the accuser to prove that they copied it and did not actually write it from scratch as they claimed.

▲

fzeroracer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No, that's not how copyright laws work. Especially in a world where the starting point is the accused making something and marketing it as someone else's IP with a license change.

	▲	Ukv 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's still on the claimant to establish copying, which usually involves showing that the two works are substantially similar in protected elements. That the defendants had access to the original helps establish copying, but isn't on its own sufficient. Only after that would the burden be on the defendants, such as to give a defense that their usage is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use.

▲

spacedcowboy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I came here to say this. While I agree with Mark that what they’re doing is not nice, I’m not sure it’s wrong. A clean-room implementation is one way the industry worked around licensing in the past (and present, I guess), but it’s not a requirement in law as far as I know.

I’m not sure that “a total rewrite” wouldn’t, in fact, pass muster - depending on how much of a rewrite it was of course. The ‘clean room’ approach was just invented as a plausible-sounding story to head off gratuitous lawsuits. This doesn’t look as defensible against the threat of a lawsuit, but it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t win that lawsuit (I’m not saying it would, I haven’t read or compared the code vs its original). Google copied the entire API of the Java language, and got away with it when Oracle sued. Things in a courtroom can often go in surprising ways…

[edit: negative votes, huh, that’s a first for a while… looks like Reddit/Slashdot-style “downvote if you don’t like what is being said” is alive and well on HN]

	▲	duskdozer 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I spent like two minutes looking at the diff between the original and the supposed "clean room" implementation [1] and already found identical classes, variable names, methods, and parameters. It looks like there was no actual attempt at clean-rooming this, regardless of whether that "counts". [1]https://github.com/chardet/chardet/compare/6.0.0.post1...7.0...
	▲	toyg 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Lol at the statement that "clean room" would have been invented to scare people from suing. It's the opposite: clean room is a fairly-desperate attempt to pre-empt accusations in court when it is expected that the "derivative" argument will be very strong, in order to then piggyback on the doctrine about interoperability. Sometimes it works, but it's a very high bar to clear.
	▲	actionfromafar 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I thought we were debating if it was legal, not if it's wrong. The law is about creativity. Was this creative or a more mechanical translation?

▲

klustregrif 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It will hold up in court. The line of argument of “well I went into a dark room with only the first Harry Potter book and a type writer and reproduced the entire work, so now I own the rewrite” doesn’t hold up in court, it doesn’t either when when you put AI in the mix. It doesn’t matter if the result is slightly different, a judge will rule based on the fact that this even is literally what the law is intended to prevent, it’s not a case of which incantation or secret sentence you should utter to free the work of its existing license.

▲

mytailorisrich 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> “well I went into a dark room with only the first Harry Potter book and a type writer and reproduced the entire work, so now I own the rewrite”

This is not a good analogy.

A "rewrite" in context here is not a reproduction of the original work but a different work that is functionally equivalent, or at least that is the claim.

	▲	red_admiral an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		To stay with the analogy, Harry Potter is not a rewrite of A Wizard of Earthsea, even if they both contain schools that teach magic.
	▲	IanCal 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Possibly important is that it’s largely api compatible but it’s not functionally equivalent in that its performance (as accuracy not just speed) is different.
	▲	6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]