this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
135 points (99.3% liked)
Programming
26150 readers
287 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you understand how free software works? Did you read the post? I'd love to clarify, but I'm not going to rewrite the article.
Also - this conclusion is ridiculous:
That is absolutely not true. It doesn't remove the copyright from the original work and no court has ruled as such.
If I wrote a "random code generator" that just happened to create the source code for Microsoft Windows in entirety it wouldn't strip Microsoft of its copyright.
Sorry, I just got around to this message. That is the idea of the provenance -- clearly, the canonical work is copyright. It is the version that has been stripped of its provenance via the LLM that no longer retains its copyright (because as I pointed out, LLM outputs cannot be copyright).
That doesn't make it "no longer copy-written" though. The original copyright holder retains their copyright on it. I can't see any court ruling otherwise.
The output of the LLM can be incorporated into copyrighted material and is copyright free. I never claimed that the copyright on the original work was lost.
I highly doubt the law is settled on this topic and you're assuming it is. I can't see the courts accepting that your duplicate version of my work created through "magic" is not going to be a violation of my copyright. Especially if my work was included as input to the "magic box" that created the output.
Yes. And this is kinda hand-wavy bullshit.
That's not how it works. Your code is not "incorporated" into the model in any recognizable form. It trains a model of vectors. There isn't a file with your
for loopin there though.I can read your code, learn from it, and create my own code with the knowledge gained from your code without violating an OSS license. So can an LLM.
No you can't. In the same way you can't watch a Mickey mouse movie and then draw your own Mickey mouse from what you recall from the movie.
Copying can be done manually by memory, it doesn't need to be a 1:1 match. Otherwise you could take a GPL licensed file, change the name of 1 variable, and make it proprietary code.
LLMs are just fancy lossy compression algorithms you can interact with. If I save a Netflix series in my hard drive, then re encode it, it is still protected by copyright, even if the bytes don't match.
Yes, I can. I can create a legally distinct mouse-bases cartoon.
You're right that if an llm gives you copyrighted code that it would be a potential problem. But the article saying that it somehow "strips the code of any copyright" is ridiculous.
Is there anything in the LLMs code preventing it from emitting copyrighted code? Nobody outside LLM companies know, but I'm willing to bet there isn't.
Therefore, LLMs DO emit copyrighted code. Due to them being trained on copyrighted code and the statistical nature of LLMs.
Does the LLM tell its users that the code it outputted has copyright? I'm not aware of any instance of that happening. In fact, LLMs are probably programmed to not put a copyright header at the start of files, even if the code it "learnt" from had them. So in the literal sense, it is stripping the code of copyright notices.
Does the justice system prosecute LLMs for outputting copyrighted code? No it doesn't.
I don't know what definition you use for "strip X of copyright" but I'd say if you can copy something openly and nobody does anything against it, you are stripping it's copyright.
Just what was stated in the fucking article
That's bullshit.
Not even just an OSS license. No license backed by law is any stronger than copyright. And you are allowed to learn from or statistically analyze even fully copyrighted work.
Copyright is just a lot more permissive than I think many people realize. And there's a lot of good that comes from that. It's enabled things like API emulation and reverse engineering and being able to leave our programming job to go work somewhere else without getting sued.
Why is Clean-room design a thing then?
Not copy your code. Use it to learn what algorithms it uses and ideas on how to implement it.
No, sometimes they spit out shit verbatim.
You are assuming way too much about how the models work.
Then that code world still be under the oss copyright. There's no "licence washing" going on.