| |
| ▲ | gpm 16 hours 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 16 hours 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? | | |
| ▲ | gpm 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Writing fn sum(a: u8, b: u8) {
a + b
}
Doesn't infringe upon copyright period, because there's no creative element in that work.Imagine a more substantial example though. Perhaps you have a test that checks that some file written in a binary format is correct, and gives names (creative elements) to each field of the format that it prints when you mess up the field, and has comments describing why the bytes are laid out like they are (the comments being copyrightable even if the facts they describe aren't), and the LLM copies those field names and comments verbatim... Now it's quite likely that the LLMs work is a derivative of the test suite. | | |
| ▲ | joshka 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Doesn't infringe upon copyright period, because there's no creative element in that work. There's likely a threshold at some point. It's helpful to look at a minima and then continue from there though. I'm curious if there's case law that supports your assertions here? | | |
| ▲ | gpm 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | For that assertion in particular I believe I'm practically parroting a ruling by the district court in Oracle vs Google about some extremely simple Java functions that Oracle claimed Google copied. Though I can't say I checked to make sure I'm remembering right. | | |
| ▲ | joshka 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're recalling it right, but there's a nice quote from Judge Alsup in that case that talks about this exact situation: > “So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification...” Here given that this is rust and the original expression is C, the implementations cannot be the same by definition. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Pay08 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's essentially the same thing as modding a game, though. I know there have been lawsuits to stop modding, but I don't think any were successful. | | |
| ▲ | joshka 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd challenge you here to think about this in terms of the legal aspects rather than reaching specifically for similarities as similar is often meaningless in the law or contracts when specific acts are codified rather than generalized ones. I'd say what we're talking about here is probably a fair bit different to modding a game in most aspects. | |
| ▲ | gpm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I haven't followed any relevant cases but I would be surprised if there's any serious dispute that the common methods of modding games generally create derivative works. I think the dispute would be downstream of that as to whether or not the mods are covered by fair use. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lelanthran 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you did it in a loop until the test passed, maybe? Your result is essentially impossible without the original. With ffmpeg, your result does not depend on ffmpeg specifically - you can use any video creation tool. | | |
| ▲ | joshka 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Repetition isn't really a factor in deciding whether something is infringing or not - check the copyright law in your jurisdiction. Here if you look specifically at what an LLM's sampling stage is doing, it's choosing non infringing tokens (i.e. rust source code) over infringing ones (i.e. C source code). So it's making an intentional choice to do something similar rather than creating something that has the same expression. That doesn't seem like it's copyright infringement to me. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A GPL tool that processes data doesn't virally transfer the license to its output. Copyrighted ffmpeg code isn't incorporated into the video output. The LLM didn't just conjure up equivalent behavior to git without ingesting the code and transforming it as new output. There is no other behavioral description that would reproduce all needed functionality. | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Medium, substitutibility, basics of copyright law. | | |
| ▲ | joshka 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fair point on medium - this was a lazy 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. | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The test suite could test aspects of the architecture/design of the codebase that are not necessary for interoperability and constitute novel expression of a piece of software in a way that is not at all language specific. | | |
| ▲ | joshka 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | By definition a test suite is about testing interoperability with the test suite. An HTTP test suite should likely test for whether response code 418 is implemented a particular way and while humorous it would still be an interop test no? | | |
| ▲ | Conan_Kudo 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, the git test suite is about testing the git codebase. If you want something like that, you need a conformance suite, which does not exist for git. |
|
|
|
|
|
