Source: OSNews
Article note: This is going to be weird and ugly.
"We had an AI trained on open source code generate code equivalent to an existing project which was probably in the training set, and published it under an incompatible license"
I'm kind of in the "If it spews forth from an AI, it shouldn't be eligible for copyright" camp on this (Because it seems like the most effective way to prevent the use of AI for the extraction and concentration of wealth and power by the already wealthy and powerful), but that also causes problems.
In the world of open source, relicensing is notoriously difficult. It usually requires the unanimous consent of every person who has ever contributed a line of code, a feat nearly impossible for legacy projects. chardet, a Python character encoding detector used by requests and many others, has sat in that tension for years: as a port of Mozilla’s C++ code it was bound to the LGPL, making it a gray area for corporate users and a headache for its most famous consumer.
Recently the maintainers used Claude Code to rewrite the whole codebase and release v7.0.0, relicensing from LGPL to MIT in the process. The original author, a2mark, saw this as a potential GPL violation.
↫ Tuan-Anh Tran
Everything about this feels like a license violation, and in general a really shit thing to do. At the same time, though, the actual legal situation, what lawyers and judges care about, is entirely unsettled and incredibly unclear. I’ve been reading a ton of takes on what happened here, and it seems nobody has any conclusive answers, with seemingly valid arguments on both sides.
Intuitively, this feels deeply and wholly wrong. This is the license-washing “AI” seems to be designed for, so that proprietary vendors can take code under copyleft licenses, feed it into their “AI” model, and tell it to regurgitate something that looks just different enough so a new, different license can be applied. Tim takes Jim’s homework. How many individual words does Tim need to change – without adding anything to Jim’s work – before it’s no longer plagiarism?
I would argue that no matter how many synonyms and slight sentence structure changes Tim employs, it’s still a plagiarised work.
However, what it feels like to me is entirely irrelevant when laws are involved, and even those laws are effectively irrelevant when so much money is riding on the answers to questions like these. The companies who desperately want this to be possible and legal are so wealthy, so powerful, and sucked up to the US government so hard, that whatever they say might very well just become law.
“AI” is the single-greatest coordinated attack on open source in history, and the open source world would do well to realise that.
