undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsjoshka17d ago0 comments

I suspect that the issue is more likely that the LLM code doesn't have an author and hence some parts of it can't be licenses, it's less likely that it's infringing on git's copyright for various reasons. (I am not a lawyer, but I do read copyright law for funsies).

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

trumpdong17d ago· 2 in thread

why wouldn't it? If you run git through a compiler it's still copyright the git devs, same if you run it through an LLM.

joshkaOP17d ago

What makes you think that's what the article says that it did? There's a lot of specific nuance and it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact it speaks of making a test suite pass only. This is the classic cleanroom bios from specs approach but no need to extract it as the test is available to run and there's nothing in the GPL that suggests that running a test suite infects software that you run it on.

vasachi17d ago

Surely git’s source is already in LLM’s training corpus. So this is far from clean room approach.

nomel17d ago· 1 in thread

https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html

> It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.

Well that's interesting.

wongarsu17d ago

Also "just" the legal opinion of a government office. It has yet to be tested in court

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse