4 ms·
> Nobody is going to sue you for using their implementation of a skybox algorithm from 1999, give us break. For personal use maybe not, but that's not the poin
by bilekas 11mo ago
> Nobody is going to sue you for using their implementation of a skybox algorithm from 1999, give us break.
For personal use maybe not, but that's not the point, the point is it's spitting out licensed code and not even letting you know. Now if you're a business who hire exclusively "vibe" coders with zero experience with enterprise software, now you're on the hook and most likely will be sued.
- mgraczyk 11mo agoDo you have any evidence that it is spitting out licensed code? Did you locate an original that it was copied from?
- bilekas 11mo agoThis particular case appears to me to be a straight derivative at best but I'm by no means an expert on copyright laws. That's not to say there hasn't already been more direct cases with set examples [1], from an author directly who would have a better right to claim than I [2], it's not even a stretch to see how it can happen. [1] https://arxiv.org/html/2408.02487v3 https://arxiv.org/html/2408.02487v3 [2] https://x.com/DocSparse/status/1581461734665367554 https://x.com/DocSparse/status/1581461734665367554
- gpm 11mo agoAs discussed repeatedly in this thread already in this particular case the code at hand wasn't generated by an LLM at all, it was simply included from a dependency by the build system.
- gitpusher 11mo agoThis seems like it could be the source: https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/Cauldron/blob/master/src/VK/shaders/SkyDomeProc.hlsl#L59-L62 https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/Cauldron/blob/ma... If true, then this usage could violate its MIT License: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." The file seems to have been copied verbatim, more or less. But without the copyright info