2 ms·

No? 1) Someone re-licenses GCC under a non-GPL license. 2) EFF sues them, to stop the behaviour 3) Court tells EFF that they have no standing to sue because

No? 1) Someone re-licenses GCC under a non-GPL license. 2) EFF sues them, to stop the behaviour 3) Court tells EFF that they have no standing to sue because LLM generated content has no copyright Obviously this happening would be in the future after someone translated GCC to Rust with LLMs or something.

olalonde 2mo ago
Again, it would require an extremely unlikely set of circumstances. 1) All of GCC would have to be LLM generated. If some parts are not, it's sufficient to prevent the re-licensing. 2) That someone would have to prove that all the GCC code was in fact LLM generated. Good luck doing that. 3) A court would have to decide that all the LLM-generated code does in fact fall under public domain, because it involved insufficient human input.
skeledrew 2mo ago
> Someone re-licenses GCC under a non-GPL license. A pointless act since code is now free. The GPL exists to ensure code freedom in an era when code was expensive. Yes I'm aware that the meaning of "free" is a bit conflated here, but the point stands.
- lanstin 2mo ago
  I believe you are underestimating the value of GCC and LLVM having won the compiler wars and being extremely high quality, and of Linux having won the OS wars, being extremely high quality. I use GenAI every day, but the quality is still proportional to the amount of my time - there is a multiplier for quantity of my amount but the 9s approaching 1 quality is not logarithmically different - the effort to fix one big is lower, but the total effort to make excellent software is still a process of polishing and then iterating. The embedded quality in GCC will take a similar order of magnitude investment from an LLM rewrite. These super high quality open foundations make LLMs more useful to us now, but saying that the embedded value or cost of GCC or Linux is zero I think will steer people wrong.

olalonde 2mo ago

Again, it would require an extremely unlikely set of circumstances. 1) All of GCC would have to be LLM generated. If some parts are not, it's sufficient to prevent the re-licensing. 2) That someone would have to prove that all the GCC code was in fact LLM generated. Good luck doing that. 3) A court would have to decide that all the LLM-generated code does in fact fall under public domain, because it involved insufficient human input.

skeledrew 2mo ago

> Someone re-licenses GCC under a non-GPL license. A pointless act since code is now free. The GPL exists to ensure code freedom in an era when code was expensive. Yes I'm aware that the meaning of "free" is a bit conflated here, but the point stands.

lanstin 2mo ago
I believe you are underestimating the value of GCC and LLVM having won the compiler wars and being extremely high quality, and of Linux having won the OS wars, being extremely high quality. I use GenAI every day, but the quality is still proportional to the amount of my time - there is a multiplier for quantity of my amount but the 9s approaching 1 quality is not logarithmically different - the effort to fix one big is lower, but the total effort to make excellent software is still a process of polishing and then iterating. The embedded quality in GCC will take a similar order of magnitude investment from an LLM rewrite. These super high quality open foundations make LLMs more useful to us now, but saying that the embedded value or cost of GCC or Linux is zero I think will steer people wrong.