No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet
github.com
Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...
  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    37·
    2 days ago

    US courts have already ruled that AI generated works cannot be copyrighted, so yeah, if you vibecode something, it is not yours to license.

      • TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
        17·
        2 days ago

        It can’t be public domain by definition. The original work was licensed, and its license (LGPL) requires derivative works to be licensed as LGPL. There is no other choice.

        • hendrik@palaver.p3x.deEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Yes. I just followed their argument to the logical conclusion, if it were true. Which it probably isn’t.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 day ago

    I think we may be mixing two different questions here.

    The legal question is not whether an AI model might have seen the original code during training. The relevant question is whether the new implementation contains protected expression from the LGPL codebase.

    At the moment, the available evidence points the other way:

    reported similarity is extremely low (~0.04% average / ~1.29% max)

    module structure and APIs differ

    the detection pipeline appears to have been reimplemented

    Solving the same problem (encoding detection) does not by itself make a work derivative.

    Seems kind of fair. Codings has always been a bit of a wild west, are we going to start copyrighting concepts? The original repo wasn’t used during the rewrite either.

    I also prefer MIT to copy left in any case and I don’t even think reverse engineering something and rewriting it is bad either. I don’t dig the constant copyright bootlicking.

    • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      9 hours ago

      If you truly enjoy free software and the right to modify, then you enjoy copy left.

      MIT is how you have your work “stolen” by people who hate freedoms and want to lock everything down.

      I really think everyone using copyleft licenses is the correct future. Licensing with MIT has become very popular, but I don’t think it should be.