[plorg]

This all relies, as the article points out, on everyone looking directly at code that both looks like and works like the only extant codebase for EXT4 and nonetheless concluding that in fact the computer conjured it from the aether. If I wrote a program that zipped up the Linux kernel source, unzipped it, and grepped -v for comments it would not then be magically transformed into unattributable public domain software.

[FeepingCreature]

Under the premise advanced in the quote, copyright is not being violated because there is none. Thus, the quote makes no sense as stated. It may be that, additionally, copyright is in fact being violated (I don't believe it myself), but if so that's a separate argument.

[plorg]

The premise of the quote does not contain the assumption that there is no copyright to the code. In fact the various contributors do not advance an opinion about whether code written by an AI can be granted copyright. Rather they are saying that it is obviously derivative of code that is under copyright, that is only distributed under terms which, however many dry cleaners process it, will still conflict with the license under which they publish their software.

[FeepingCreature]

Different people advance different arguments in the thread. The BSD argument is "we cannot distribute it because it is not copyrightable, thus we cannot put it under a BSD license." This is simply incoherent.

[bigbadfeline]

> Rather they are saying that it is obviously derivative of code that is under copyright

Derivatives are not subject to copyright, unless they are close to, and contain substantial verbatim copies from, the original. It's a virtual certainty that a vibe-coded Ext4 FS is none of the above.

Redefining copyright as some weird patenting of similar ideas is absurd.

[em-bee]

see my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47557250

[bigbadfeline]

> If I wrote a program that zipped up the Linux kernel source, unzipped it, and grepped -v for comments it would not then be magically transformed into unattributable public domain software.

That's not the case here. A re-implemented piece of software that does not contain meaningful verbatim excerpts from the original is not subject to the copyright of the original.

[em-bee]

that is not certain. if you read code and then reimplement it using the original code as reference, the claim has been made that this falls under the copyright of the original because the new code is derived from the old code. unfortunately this particular situation has not yet been tested in court. but clean room implementations are done specifically to avoid the risk reading the original code poses. if this was clear cut then clean room development would not be needed.

this is similar to creating an extension to some program, because the extension could not be written without the original even if the interface the extension is using is a public API. the claim has been made that the copyright of the original program applies. i think the linux kernel is an example here.

see also these questions on stackexchange:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2087...

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/8675...

[ranger_danger]

What if one reverse engineered the original logic, for example translating the assembly code into a higher level language. They didn't use or look at the original code. Does that still count as "clean room"? What's the legal difference between that and deriving the logic just from observing how the running program acts?

[em-bee]

there is no legal precedence that clarifies what clean room development is. clean room development is a precaution to stay away as far as possible from the original code in order to reduce the risk of infringement. clearly, not looking at the assembly code is better than looking at it.

[bigbadfeline]

> this is similar to creating an extension to some program

There's no such thing as "an extension to some program". A derivative work is a work that contains the original. Using the privileges provided by copyright law, the creator may impose licensing restrictions on how the original work is used - but that's contract law, not copyright.

For example the GPL and the AGPL define different sets of use restrictions, none of that matters in this case because the original work is not being reproduced or used per se.

As I already said in my other, down-voted comment - copyright is only about verbatim, or near verbatim copies, in whole or in part - it's the spirit that both judgment and the letter of the law are supposed to follow. Copying of functionality is not subject to copyright.

For example, one can use the same topic for a work of poetry for a similar aesthetic effect and that doesn't infringe other poems.

The GPL used a hack to stretch copyright law into a near opposite but stretching it further goes into absurd territory, achieving the opposite of what the GPL claims to protect.

[em-bee]

a kernel driver is an extension to the kernel. yet, even with a clearly defined API it is a derived work of the kernel.

one can use the same topic for a work of poetry for a similar aesthetic effect and that doesn't infringe other poems

because the new poem does not depend on the original.

the kernel driver is useless without the kernel

[bigbadfeline]

> a kernel driver is an extension to the kernel. yet, even with a clearly defined API it is a derived work of the kernel.

Maybe, in some alternative universe, that could be correct but it isn't anywhere on Earth.

You can write a BSD-licensed driver as a Linux module and distribute it separately all you want - copyright law is OK with that.

The moment you insert the module into the kernel the whole thing, kernel + driver becomes a derivative work and you're forbidden from using it by the GPL - the license, not copyright... Copyright only gives the creators of the kernel the privileged power to impose that contractual restriction.

Long time ago, some BSD guys were trying to convince me that the GPL was primarily a weapon against BSD and other less restrictive licenses but I didn't believe it back then... boy, was I wrong.

You showed me how the GPL can be used for threats against the free modification of software by arguing for the addition of new, absurd powers to copyright - the opposite of what the GPL proponents are promoting it for. It's indeed a license that must be avoided at all cost.

[em-bee]

not in an alternate universe, but it's a claim made by some free software people. i don't have time to search for a quote right now.

yes, it is disputed, and the claim has not been tested in court. but it is an argument being made.

the GPL was primarily a weapon against BSD.

It's indeed a license that must be avoided at all cost.

well, it depend on whose side you support. i am on the side of protecting the rights of the user to modify their software. BSD licenses don't do that. they give me the right, but they don't protect it.

more importantly, i am also on the side of the developer to protect their ability to make a living. for that the BSD license is completely useless. GPL is better, AGPL even more, but even those are not restrictive enough to prevent unfair competition by large corporations.

i am not interested in allowing those companies to benefit from my work if they are not required to pass that forward.