Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?
-
@Foxboron As far as I'm aware here in Germany it technically has copyright, but there's no owner who can enforce it.
I guess complicated is a good word for that.
-
@Foxboron@chaos.social "Laundering code" through an LLM...
But:
Since the LLM-generated code cannot be copyrighted in any way, this entire project (or at least the part the LLM generated) is technically public domain.
Oh well. Not like certain entities care for the law! 
@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 -
@Bubu @Foxboron somebody should inform PSF that in fact, chardet now has NO licensing and cannot be legally copyrighted or trademarked in any jurisdiction.
The Copyright Office’s Latest Guidance on AI and Copyrightability
US Copyright Office reaffirms AI-generated works without human creative input are not eligible for copyright protection. Emphasizes human creativity in AI use
The National Law Review (natlawreview.com)
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxjnmmxpx/USPTO%20AI%20PATENTS%20squires.pdf
-
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 But AI written is not copyright, so does licence now matter on that code?
-
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 somebody should do this with the leaked Windows source code
-
@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.
