The GPL isn't strict enough now that everyone has a copyright laundering machine at their disposal.

I've been experimenting with adding a "translation" clause in accordance with the GPL paragraph 7, where if by means of automatically translating the project to a different language (by transpiling or machine learning) the license is retained, but not necessarily the copyright.

So far I'm not happy with the results by Claude and ChatGPT. Probably I should talk to a lawyer.

The GPLv3 was largely invented to prevent tivoization, we need GPLv4 now to prevent copyright laundering.

▲

microgpt 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If copyright isn't retained you have absolutely no rights relating to copyright. You can't make someone do something by writing a line in a contract they don't have to follow.

▲

wasting_time 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair point. Probably I should assert copyright on the translated work. In any case it ought to be part of the GPL. The current text is rather ambiguous.

	▲	microgpt 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess it has no legal effect. Either you hold a copyright in the translated work and telling someone of this fact doesn't change anything, or you don't and telling someone that you do is a silly lie. However, it might stop some people from doing it anyway. GPL allows you to attach additional permission notices and require them to be carried downstream. This is often used to carry MIT license notices when MIT software is used inside GPL, but you could also put something about how AI violates copyright if it's a "reasonable legal notice"...