> If you don't want your lunch eaten by a private equity firm, make sure whatever tool you use is GPL licensed.

1. For the record: the GPL is entirely dependent on copyright.

2. If AI "clean-room" re-implementations are allow to bypass copyright/licenses, the GPL won't protect you.

"Clean room" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Having the entire corpus of knowledge for humanity and how LLMs work, how can you honestly argue in court that this is purely clean room implementation?

This is right up there with Meta lawyers claiming that when they torrent it's totally legal but when a single person torrents it's copyright infringement.

▲

20k 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Far too many people treat AI as a way to launder copyright, it seems likely that a lot of the current state of outright plagiarism won't stand up in court

	▲	bredren 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No IP will stand up to AI, from Star Wars to Linear. Things are about to change.

▲

goku12 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If AI "clean-room" re-implementations are allow to bypass copyright/licenses, the GPL won't protect you.

Isn't that the same for the obligations under BSD/MIT/Apache? The problem they're trying to address is a different one from the problem of AI copyright washing. It's fair to avoid introducing additional problems while debunking another point.

▲

islandfox100 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe I'm reading wrong here, but what's the implication of the clean room re-implementations? Someone else is cloning with a changed license, but if I'm still on the GPL licensed tool, how am I "not protected"?

▲

darkwater 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1. Company A develops Project One as GPLv3

2. BigCo bus Company A

3a. usually here BigCo should continue to develop Project One as GPLv3, or stop working on it and the community would fork and it and continue working on it as GPLv3

3b. BigCo does a "clean-room" reimplementation of Project One and releases it under proprietary licence. Community can still fork the older version and work on it, but BigCo can continue to develop and sell their "original" version.

	▲	makapuf 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		2. BigCo owns ProjectOne now 3a. Bigco is now free to release version N+1 as closed source only. 3b. Community can still fork the older version and work on it, but BigCo can continue to develop and sell their original version.
	▲	bloppe 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As a real world example, Redis was both Company A and BigCo. Project One is now ValKey.

▲

eru 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's basically no different between GPL and BSD in that case.

▲

worldsayshi 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If clean-room re-implementations are allowed to bypass copyright/licenses (software) copyright is dead in general?

▲

justcool393 7 hours ago | parent [-]

well no, (clean room )reimplementations of APIs have done since time immemorial. copyright applies to the work itself. if you implement the functionality of X, software copyright protects both!

patents protect ideas, copyright protects artistic expressions of ideas

	▲	LtWorf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The problem is that, is it clean room if you read all of the code in advance?