No, no, some open source licenses require you to publish internal changes. Eg some are explicitly written that you have to publish even when you 'only' use the changes on your own servers. (Not having to publish that was seen as a loophole for cloud companies to exploit.)

"given that AI can now supposedly engineer a clean-room reimplementation of any published program whatsoever"

I'm missing something there, that's precisely what I'm arguing again. How can it do a clean-room reimplementation when the open source code is most likely in the training data? That only works if you would train on everything BUT the implementation you want. It's definitely feasible but wouldn't that be prohibitively expensive for most, if not all, projects?

Am I right in thinking that is not even "clean room" in the way people usually think of it, e.g. Compaq?

The "clean room" aspect for that came in the way that the people writing the new implementation had no knowledge of the original source material, they were just given a specification to implement (see also Oracle v. Google).

If you're feeding an LLM GPL'd code and it "creates" something "new" from it, that's not "clean room", right?

At the end of the day the supposed reimplementation that the LLM generates isn't copyrightable either so maybe this is all moot.

Satire is too dangerous to be presented outside of its community. This honestly should've been left within FOSDEM.

It's great within the context of people who understand it, enlightening even. Sparks conversations and debates. But outside of it ignorance wields it like a bludgeon and dangerous to everyone around them. Look at all the satirical media around fascism, if you knew to criticize you could laugh, but for fascists it's a call to arms.