Malus, which is a piece of "satire" but also fully functional, performs a "clean room" clone of open source software, meaning users could then sell, redistribute, etc. the software without crediting the original developers. But I have a hard time with the "clean room" argument since the LLM doing the behind-the-scenes work has already ingested the entire corpus of open source software -- and somehow the output of the LLMs isn't considered a derivative work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Could you imagine having to maintain it yourself though. I mean assumming it even spits out a working version, you've probably introduced a ton of new bugs and potential security threats. Additionally, unlike a fork, you can't even merge in improvements to the software.

While it's a scary topic, in most cases you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you incorporated anything this spits out.

Edit:spelling

[–] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 7 points 3 weeks ago

They expect the maintainer yo continue develop the one source version so they can use the tool again to get new versions. Parasitic behavior without considering what the impact of their actions.