The practical tension I see: I build open source tools and use AI heavily in the process (Claude as a coding assistant). Every commit has "Co-Authored-By: Claud

The practical tension I see: I build open source tools and use AI heavily in the process (Claude as a coding assistant). Every commit has "Co-Authored-By: Claude" in it. The code is MIT-licensed and genuinely mine in terms of architecture and intent, but the line-by-line generation is clearly AI-assisted. This creates an odd situation where the "reimplementation via AI" concern cuts both ways. If someone feeds my MIT repo to an LLM and gets a copyleft-violating derivative, that's one problem. But if I use an LLM trained on copyleft code to write my MIT-licensed tool, am I the one laundering licenses without knowing it? I think the article's core point holds: legitimacy and legality are diverging fast. The open source community built norms around intent and reciprocity, and those norms are now being stress-tested by tools that can reimplement anything from a spec. No license text can fully encode "don't be a free rider."