Programming

25998 readers

190 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

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

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

UlrikHD@programming.dev

bugsmith@programming.dev

Spyro@programming.dev

Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft (writings.hongminhee.org)

submitted 1 day ago by hongminhee@lemmy.ml to c/programming@programming.dev

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Kissaki@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I never thought I would move away from FOSS/AGPL by default. The more I read about this issue, the more I consider providing free services instead of FOSSing. It's a shame.

FOSS is still important and necessary to a degree, for auditability and self-hostability, very important for security and control, even as a conscious/careful user.

Maybe this puts us more towards "pay to free the code" or something, so there is at least some compensation. Won't make verbatim regenerated AGPL to MIT any less hurtful though.

If you publish a free service, at least they're not feeding from your code too.

Tragic.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He fed only the API and the test suite to Claude and asked it to reimplement the library from scratch.

What was the test suite licenced under? If it was in the same repo, then it was probably LGPL code as well.

If the MIT rewrite uses the LGPL licensed test cases, including them in the repo, then it probably must be LGPL as well.

[–] Kissaki@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

I find "from scratch" a questionable claim as well. The model was probably trained on the code it is supposed to replace. Interfacing with the concrete tests and interfaces makes the result even more likely to be and puts it conceptually closer to the original code fed as training data.