Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?
-
@Foxboron somebody should do this with the leaked Windows source code
@wronglang
That would probably not be litigated under copyright law. -
@Foxboron, not to mention it doesn't pass its own test suite.
-
@hannah@moonserver.yorha.nexus @Foxboron@chaos.social well, it would be public domain (by current rulings in the US) if the newer version is sufficiently different from the original LGPL to not be covered under that copyright
Very "funny" to license a repo as MIT when it is potentially either LGPL or public domain@brie@do.crimes.brie.gay @Foxboron@chaos.social Well...
... Fair point! 
One could argue that a rewrite is something different or the same... depending on how one wants to play it. This one would argue that it is actually something new because the underlying technology has changed to a significant degree (as far as this one is aware... but it is not a lawyer obviously). -
@scy
US court is leaning towards that LLM generated code is fundamentally not copyrightable.This is a different problem to the moral issues I have with this.
-
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?
Release 7.0.0 · chardet/chardet
Python character encoding detector. Contribute to chardet/chardet development by creating an account on GitHub.
GitHub (github.com)
That is one way to launder GPL code I guess?
@Foxboron Ugh I've rewritten things from scratch for licensing reasons, but the rule is I can't look at the original code. This definitely feels like it's not respecting the spirit of copyleft by using the loophole that bots glanced at the code...
-
@scy
A license violation usually implies that there is a copyright violation to begin with.@Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social No. You can violate existing copyrighted material during creation of a not copyrightable material.
-
@Foxboron, not to mention it doesn't pass its own test suite.
-
Supreme Court has already dismissed such cases.
So we are getting a precedent in US law. Yet to be settled in any high court in the EU though.
@Foxboron@chaos.social @joshbressers@infosec.exchange @scy@chaos.social Supreme court dismissed copyright case against generated material. Nobody discard case for infringement by this generated material.
You can't pursue somebody for reusing your AI material, because such material can't be copyrighted), but you can pursue somebody to have generated AI material from your copyrighted (and so not AI) material. -
@thomasjwebb@mastodon.social @Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social They decide that. AI material is not human generated, so not copyrightable.
But it doesn't mean this material is not copyright infringement, the only dropped case concerned AI ppl trying to sue other AI ppl based on copyright, not at all real human pursuing AI material.
Currently NYT is on this way, and solid rock at this time : https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/technology/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit.html -
Sure, but we are not really looking at, nor discussing, cases where LLMs spits out something verbatim from another project in this case.
@Foxboron @joshbressers @scy Open-source projects that have sought to be compatible with proprietary software, e.g. Samba trying to be compatible with Windows SMB, etc., have (if I'm not misremembering) taken a "clean room" approach and outright stated they do not want any code from any developer who had even looked at the MSFT code for fear of being accused of infringement.
The copyrightability of LLM output is not relevant here - the only question is whether a court would consider the original license infringed upon in the creation of the output.
As I understand it, though, this is a reimplementation of a codebase by the same contributors -- Dan Blanchard seems to be the primary maintainer before and after the rewrite, so ISTM he'd be able to relicense the project regardless of whether it was passed through an LLM first.
It will be interesting when this happens because a company or person decides "I don't like copyleft, so I'll just run this through the LLM wash until I get a functional copy". But this doesn't seem to be that.
-
@Foxboron @joshbressers @scy Open-source projects that have sought to be compatible with proprietary software, e.g. Samba trying to be compatible with Windows SMB, etc., have (if I'm not misremembering) taken a "clean room" approach and outright stated they do not want any code from any developer who had even looked at the MSFT code for fear of being accused of infringement.
The copyrightability of LLM output is not relevant here - the only question is whether a court would consider the original license infringed upon in the creation of the output.
As I understand it, though, this is a reimplementation of a codebase by the same contributors -- Dan Blanchard seems to be the primary maintainer before and after the rewrite, so ISTM he'd be able to relicense the project regardless of whether it was passed through an LLM first.
It will be interesting when this happens because a company or person decides "I don't like copyleft, so I'll just run this through the LLM wash until I get a functional copy". But this doesn't seem to be that.
@jzb @Foxboron @joshbressers Maintainers can't just change the license without asking each and every contributor for their approval. In open source projects, contributors usually keep their individual copyright, except when the project has them sign additional terms, or assign copyright to the project or something.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@jzb @Foxboron @joshbressers Maintainers can't just change the license without asking each and every contributor for their approval. In open source projects, contributors usually keep their individual copyright, except when the project has them sign additional terms, or assign copyright to the project or something.
@scy @Foxboron @joshbressers I mean, they _can_ if they rewrite the code in question.
So here - *if* one of the LGPL code contributors is offended by the license change they could look at the new codebase and see if the new code resembles their contribution. Then they'd have to challenge it.
But projects have been relicensed without seeking permission from every contributor and/or by removing contributions if they cannot get approval. I'm not aware of any cases where a contributor has successfully challenged such - but there's always a first time.
-
@jzb @Foxboron @joshbressers Maintainers can't just change the license without asking each and every contributor for their approval. In open source projects, contributors usually keep their individual copyright, except when the project has them sign additional terms, or assign copyright to the project or something.
Depends.
If you have a permissively licensed project, you can change the source to GPL by just using a poison pill approach.
This is what Forgejo did as an example.
This works as the MIT license terms are met.
The other way would not work.
-
Depends.
If you have a permissively licensed project, you can change the source to GPL by just using a poison pill approach.
This is what Forgejo did as an example.
This works as the MIT license terms are met.
The other way would not work.
@Foxboron @jzb @joshbressers You're right, I should've worded that differently.
They can change the license, if the current license allows it.
Still, everyone keeps their individual copyright.
-
@Foxboron lol, this is in a way what they suggest in this talk from #fosdem26: https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/SUVS7G-lets_end_open_source_together_with_this_one_simple_trick/
@duckattack @Foxboron great talk. but generating all the video with sora is both surface level clever, and then just massively offensive to the creators that have been fed to sora.
-
@brie@do.crimes.brie.gay @Foxboron@chaos.social Well...
... Fair point!
One could argue that a rewrite is something different or the same... depending on how one wants to play it. This one would argue that it is actually something new because the underlying technology has changed to a significant degree (as far as this one is aware... but it is not a lawyer obviously).@hannah@moonserver.yorha.nexus @Foxboron@chaos.social
yep, "has changed to a significant degree" is what I was trying to cover by "sufficiently different"
I'm not a lawyer either, but I like learning about legal details, especially copyright. As far as I understand, it isn't very well defined how much source code needs to change to be considered a separate work. This question might not be answered at all until someone goes to court over similar questions (at a sufficiently high level), or there are laws about this.
And this is only for the US's copyright system, but I definitely do not understand how US copyright and other countries copyrights intersect, so I am not going to try to speculate at all -
@scy
US court is leaning towards that LLM generated code is fundamentally not copyrightable.This is a different problem to the moral issues I have with this.
@Foxboron @scy This means that anything "new" (i.e. nothing) the "AI" brought to the work is not a creative work that you can hold copyright to just because you were the person prompting/using the "AI".
It does NOT mean that the copyright on whatever the AI plagiarized is void. But that's how the industry will try to spin these rulings. We need to point out this distinction and fight their attempts to mislead in order to seize and enclose our work.
-
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?
Release 7.0.0 · chardet/chardet
Python character encoding detector. Contribute to chardet/chardet development by creating an account on GitHub.
GitHub (github.com)
That is one way to launder GPL code I guess?
@Foxboron Might as well rewrite it in rust or zig while he’s at it.
-
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?
Release 7.0.0 · chardet/chardet
Python character encoding detector. Contribute to chardet/chardet development by creating an account on GitHub.
GitHub (github.com)
That is one way to launder GPL code I guess?
@Foxboron If AI product, such as code, can't be copyrighted (which seems to be the way the supreme court is going) then I would think it can't be licensed. It's that true?
-
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?
Release 7.0.0 · chardet/chardet
Python character encoding detector. Contribute to chardet/chardet development by creating an account on GitHub.
GitHub (github.com)
That is one way to launder GPL code I guess?
@Foxboron https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/SUVS7G-lets_end_open_source_together_with_this_one_simple_trick/ didn't watch this talk yet, but seems relevant!
EDIT: just watched it. Note: _loads_ of genAI video... feels like my brain is a bit broken. But entertaining. Goes through the history of copyright (from books in the 1700s) through to cleanrooming in the 1970s and then strongly makes the point that cleanrooming is "almost free" now.
True to the talk title, the talk offers no solutions, ending with "this is the end of open source as we know it"
