they would be just wrong. I hope someone with standing sues

▲ gpm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think it's that clear cut. The functional parts probably aren't copyrightable, only the stylistic ones. It's going to be a mix of courts applying laws in new ways that hasn't been done before and fact specific questions about what actually persisted through the LLM if it goes to court.

I'd be fascinated to see what happens if it does. Both in the analyses that we'd get of what the LLM did to the codebase and on the legal decisions on what the copyrightable creative elements in code actually are.

If I was the author though... there would be no way that I would be volunteering to be a test case like this. Also seems just rude for no reason.

▲ Conan_Kudo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It probably would have been less bad if he had chosen MPL-2.0 or LGPL-2.1-or-later. But he chose MIT, which cuts at the core of the intent of licensing the project with a share-alike license.

▲ joshka 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Tell me, can I create a copyrighted video that's not GPL licensed using ffmpeg? Now tell me how creating a rust library using the git test suite is different?

▲ gpm 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> using the git test suite

That's not actually the case at hand here - the agents were given the original source to reference: https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/blob/main/AGENTS.md#sou...

But for the sake of argument: The test suite itself is copyrighted. To the extent the resulting work is a derivative of the test suite it is possibly infringing. For example you might example that the agent would derive variable names, function names, structure sequence and organization of the code from the test suite. It might even copy comments wholesale. Those are copyrightable things. (Which is of course just the first step in analyzing if it is infringement, there would be interesting fair use, de-minimis copying, etc arguments following a conclusion that any of those were copyrighted. A product produced this way definitely could be infringing given the right facts though).

	▲	joshka 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> That's not actually the case at hand here - the agents were given the original source to reference: https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/blob/main/AGENTS.md#sou... yeah fair - the "The canonical Git source code we're targeting to replicate the functionality of is in the git/ subdirectory." part makes this hard to argue against. > To the extent the resulting work is a derivative of the test suite it is possibly infringing It's this bit that I have a problem with. If I run the test, it fails and reports a failure. Now I write code and run the test again. What is the theory there that code that I wrote infringes. Simplify this down: Assume the following is copyrighted: `fn test_sum() { assert_eq!(sum(1, 1), 2); }` Does writing the following code: `fn sum(a: u8, b: u8) { a + b }` infringe on the test copyright?

▲ NewJazz 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Medium, substitutibility, basics of copyright law.

	▲	joshka 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Fair point on medium - this was a lay example. Substitutibility probably doesn't apply here in the way you're implying and if it did it would likely be hampered by the 9th circuits findings about transformation in sony v connectix. Arguments here likely would look at rust not having a stable ABI, and hence not being inherently substitutable as a libray (grit-lib), less clear as an executable (grit-cli) on that side basics of copyright law - the fundamental thing being protected is the expression... is a rust program's expression the same expression as a c program? I'd say generally not.

▲ trumpdong 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

functional parts not being copyrightable means that you can't claim a program is a copyright violation based on the fact it does the exact same thing based on compatibility reasons (you can copy what the program does). E.g. git stores refs in .git/refs, so does grit, that's not a violation. You still can't copy the program.

▲

gpm 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes... and now we get to the fact specific question of "did they copy the program". Or actually the answer to that is plainly "no" - they made something similar from it - and didn't run ctrl-c ctrl-v in an unlicensed manner, but "did they copy the relevant facets of the program into the new similar thing".

	▲	trumpdong 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Making something similar is copying for the purpose of copyright law. If I trace over a Disney character it's still copyright Disney.

▲ joshka 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I suspect that the issue is more likely that the LLM code doesn't have an author and hence some parts of it can't be licenses, it's less likely that it's infringing on git's copyright for various reasons. (I am not a lawyer, but I do read copyright law for funsies).

▲

trumpdong an hour ago | parent [-]

why wouldn't it? If you run git through a compiler it's still copyright the git devs, same if you run it through an LLM.

	▲	joshka 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What makes you think that's what the article says that it did? There's a lot of specific nuance and it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact it speaks of making a test suite pass only. This is the classic cleanroom bios from specs approach but no need to extract it as the test is available to run and there's nothing in the GPL that suggests that running a test suite infects software that you run it on.