> Here's how open source contributions go down: I clone your repo, point an agent at your test suite, and have it rewrite the whole thing in Rust to a "spec." N

> Here's how open source contributions go down: I clone your repo, point an agent at your test suite, and have it rewrite the whole thing in Rust to a "spec." No copyright infringed, your honor — an agent wrote every line to a clean-room description, and the description was just your code read aloud. The tests were the spec. The spec was theft. Theft was the pipeline. I know this website is tongue-and-cheek but I did want to address this part. It's seems to be referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803 I personally don't see re-implementing a project's specification from tests as theft. I also find it morally okay as long as the re-implementers don't lie about the original project (e.g. saying it's the clone to theirs, the original is X times slower when it's not, etc.). Legally, it would also be permissible since re-implementation of a spec, and even an api interface, has been established to be fair use: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/05/google-oracle-supreme-court-case-479044 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/05/google-oracle-supre...