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 16 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 16 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 16 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 14 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 an hour 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 4 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.