For example MacBook Neo, with GPU acceleration support.

You can try the installer here: https://omarchy.org/#install M4-M6 work is very advanced as well, but not yet end-user installer friendly.

I don't get your point.

"makes recreating instead look more attractive"

They're already recreating and they have zero intention of sharing.

If the LLM has ‘seen’ the GPL-licensed code, it is debatable whether a reimplementation by that LLM is from scratch.

It doesn’t help the “yes it is; the LLM learned from reading that code, but didn’t copy it” camp that there have been cases where an LLM output blocks of code that are very similar to parts of GPL-licensed source code.

Question for copyright to apply then is whether those blocks are copyrightable and if so, whether the ‘copied’ text is similar enough to the source text.

Are you implying it's impossible to submit a story with a headline specific to an issue that was originally mentioned in a different article with a different/unrelated title? Effectively making it impossible to bring notice to a single issue? I don't interpret the guidelines that way.

Sorry, I meant for Asahi specifically.

I am no lawyer but I am law-curious, so I went looking for more info on rangeCheck. As we all know AI erases liability, but I'm a poor old human still trying to compete with AI and I do have legal liability so I guess I still have to think about what the rules mean, eh?

Here's my thing: Oracle v Google was a fight that ended up being about two specific things, one was whether API-declaring interface code could be a subject of copyright law. Once it was found that interfaces could be copyrighted the lawsuit turned its focus to thing two: whether Google's use was fair use.

The part of copyright law, as written, that protects your ability to copy a 9-line RangeCheck function, is NOT, emphatically NOT fair use. It is convergence, the least-known of all the copyright principles.

Convergence says that if many people not coordinating could be expected to all land on the same results, then logically the activity must not be creative expression and the result must not be possible to copyright. This is why nobody owns math equations like e=mc^2. It's not that no creativity was required to derive the equation, it's that anyone working at it would end up with a result of that form.

In programming this would protect you when you do something like write a parser for a programming language, or implement a common helper function. Anything where you may, through now fault of your own, do work that creates a result similar to work that someone else has already done.

I don't know that any significant court case has ever even had arguments based on convergence even though it's the most practical shield most of us have most of the time.

Doubt it. If you needed an LLM to launder it it's surely not trivial. Trivial is any well known code pattern for example.

"for(int j=0; j<ARRAY_SIZE(a); j++) total += a[j];" - you could copy paste this and more out of leaked Windows source code and it still wouldn't be a copyright violation. But beware that a sum of a large number of trivialities can be not trivial.

I would be worried about transformation via LLM being considered a "trivial transformation". Trivial transformations do not remove the original copyright.

All completely unsettled law at this point. And, as a general guiding principle, you do NOT want to be one of the people who pays millions in legal fees and court costs to find out, whether you are right or wrong.