👀 … https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ …my colleague Denver Gingerich writes: newcomers' extensive reliance on LLM-backed generative AI is comparable to the Eternal September onslaught to USENET in 1993.
-
@sfoskett you can incorporate public domain code into a licensed work.
@evan @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Ok I haven’t really heard people before you guys explain that to me. So I was wondering if it was possible that it couldn’t be licensed. Thanks.
-
@richardfontana @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy Yeah, I thought my job couldn't be automated, either, and yet here we are.
-
@richardfontana @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy Yeah, I thought my job couldn't be automated, either, and yet here we are.
@richardfontana @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy Seriously, though, a lot of the work seems like it is tractable to LLM automation?
Like, the abstraction part seems like it's just summarizing components at the function, module, and program level. This is the command-line argument parser, this is the database abstraction layer, this is the logging module. LLMs are pretty good at this!
-
@richardfontana @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy Seriously, though, a lot of the work seems like it is tractable to LLM automation?
Like, the abstraction part seems like it's just summarizing components at the function, module, and program level. This is the command-line argument parser, this is the database abstraction layer, this is the logging module. LLMs are pretty good at this!
-
@cwebber @LordCaramac @bkuhn @richardfontana Sadly it will be years before we have an answer re copyright and we can't wait for that. Outlining usage in the meantime is the best we can do, in case we need to do something with that later.
We know proprietary software companies are using these tools extensively, so this is in effect a mutually assured destruction situation. While we wait, we should make sure that we are pushing freedom on all other axes, since they won't do that part.
@ossguy @cwebber @LordCaramac @bkuhn @richardfontana proprietary software companies extensively use GitHub and yet SFC's position is "don't use GitHub".
There are so many things we do in free software and in the interactions with SFC and FSF that would be simpler if we used proprietary software. How many janky experiences have people been asking to tolerate to participate? Why shouldn't we use proprietary software there?
-
@zacchiro @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I would say it's dramatically less safe. First, there's very little incentive to go after some OSS project over an unauthorized inbound=outbound contribution. Second, if someone did, the damage would likely be a small part of a single project. Third, only a small number of parties (the employer, or maybe some other single party whose code was copied) have the ability to sue.
With LLMs, it's different. When the authors sued Anthropic, they all sued. Is a shell script that Claude generated a derivative work of, say, the romantasy novel A Court of Thorns and Roses (to pick a random thing included in Anthropic's training set)? Well, it's hard to show that it's not, in the sense that that novel is one of the zillion things that went into generating the weights that generated the shell script.
Now it happens that the authors sued Anthropic (and settled). But I don't know if their settlement covers users of Claude (and even if it did, there are two other big models). And that's only the book authors -- there's still all of the code authors in the world.
So yes, I think the risk is high. I mean, in some sense -- in another sense, it seems unlikely that Congress would say, "sorry, LLMs as code generators are toast because of some century-old laws". At most, they would set up a statutory licensing scheme for LLM providers which covers LLM outputs. Of course, Europe might go a different way, but I think they would probably do the same. Under this hypothetical scheme, if your code were used to train Claude, you would get a buck or two in the mail every year. Authors got I think $3k per book as a one-time payment, but that was a funny case because of how Anthropic got access to the books.
Still, there's a risk that Congress wouldn't act (due to standard US government dysfunction).
It seems like most people are willing to take this risk, which I think says something interesting about most people's moral intuitions.
@novalis
I agree with your supporting arguments but not the conclusion.It goes back to the mutually assured destruction idea: no one in the for profit proprietary software industry is going to bring a lawsuit because they are so invested in LLM-backed AI succeeding.
That's where our commons differs widely from other creative works of expression.
I am worried about compulsory licensing for *training* —could be a disaster — but unrelated to output.
-
@evan @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Another major concern is that works generated by AI are not copyrightable per the US Supreme Court. So code generated by an LLM can not be licensed at all, open or closed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/
-
@richardfontana @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy Seriously, though, a lot of the work seems like it is tractable to LLM automation?
Like, the abstraction part seems like it's just summarizing components at the function, module, and program level. This is the command-line argument parser, this is the database abstraction layer, this is the logging module. LLMs are pretty good at this!
For filtration, it seems like merger or scènes à faire would also be kind of automatable, maybe with human oversight. Is there a way to make a mailing daemon without a logging module? Maybe, but it's so common that everyone does it that way. Could you have a Person class without a getter and setter for the name? Probably not?
-
For filtration, it seems like merger or scènes à faire would also be kind of automatable, maybe with human oversight. Is there a way to make a mailing daemon without a logging module? Maybe, but it's so common that everyone does it that way. Could you have a Person class without a getter and setter for the name? Probably not?
The comparison seems tough, but I'd put an LLM to the task. "How similar are the database abstraction layers in activitypub-bot and Fedify?" Again, I'd probably want some human review, but for that code stuff LLMs are pretty good.
-
@richardfontana @evan @cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy I feel like it’s 3 questions for the court:
1 Can a non-human actor produce a copyrightable work? Likely no.
2 Is the human prompt and review enough to apply copyright to LLM content? Maybe?
3 Does this have implications for open source? I guess not. -
The comparison seems tough, but I'd put an LLM to the task. "How similar are the database abstraction layers in activitypub-bot and Fedify?" Again, I'd probably want some human review, but for that code stuff LLMs are pretty good.
I consider myself an expert on this process since I learned about it 45 minutes ago, but it seems like AFC follows the hierarchical layers of modern programming-in-the-large -- statements, functions, modules, packages, program. That is the stuff that LLMs handle pretty well.
-
For filtration, it seems like merger or scènes à faire would also be kind of automatable, maybe with human oversight. Is there a way to make a mailing daemon without a logging module? Maybe, but it's so common that everyone does it that way. Could you have a Person class without a getter and setter for the name? Probably not?
I actually think that these copyright concepts aren't particularly automatable.
Even if we try, it's pure arms race.And the merger doctrine isn't the big problem here, it is the more complex analysis where merger doctrine clearly doesn't apply that needs analysis and I suspect the analysis is difficult to (even partially) automate.
But I'm looking into it.
Cf: chardet situation https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/355#issuecomment-4145369025
-
@novalis
I agree with your supporting arguments but not the conclusion.It goes back to the mutually assured destruction idea: no one in the for profit proprietary software industry is going to bring a lawsuit because they are so invested in LLM-backed AI succeeding.
That's where our commons differs widely from other creative works of expression.
I am worried about compulsory licensing for *training* —could be a disaster — but unrelated to output.
@bkuhn @zacchiro @cwebber @ossguy @richardfontana I don't even know if I agree with my supporting arguments. But I don't even think that it has to be someone in the proprietary world that brings a lawsuit -- it could be anyone whose code or text is trained on.
-
I actually think that these copyright concepts aren't particularly automatable.
Even if we try, it's pure arms race.And the merger doctrine isn't the big problem here, it is the more complex analysis where merger doctrine clearly doesn't apply that needs analysis and I suspect the analysis is difficult to (even partially) automate.
But I'm looking into it.
Cf: chardet situation https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/355#issuecomment-4145369025
@bkuhn @evan @richardfontana @ossguy One thing I worry about is that the chardet rewrite might not generalize. The chardet maintainer used *more* care in the rewrite than most projects which have followed suit for laundering would. https://dan-blanchard.github.io/blog/chardet-rewrite-controversy/
Even then, it raises questions, because even the maintainer admits, chardet was part of the training set.
It's very similar to how a friend recently sent me, "Claude managed to reverse engineer Bubble Bobble without using any reverse engineering tools, just inspecting the binary!" https://kotrotsos.medium.com/we-pointed-an-ai-at-raw-binary-files-from-1986-662ba30120f3
Which like, Claude is enough of a black box already but Bubble Bobble is also one of the most studied ROMs in history, so that's hard to evaluate whether it's true. You'd have to choose a less studied ROM as a test case, not Bubble Bobble, which the internet has discussed to death.
-
@bkuhn @evan @richardfontana @ossguy One thing I worry about is that the chardet rewrite might not generalize. The chardet maintainer used *more* care in the rewrite than most projects which have followed suit for laundering would. https://dan-blanchard.github.io/blog/chardet-rewrite-controversy/
Even then, it raises questions, because even the maintainer admits, chardet was part of the training set.
It's very similar to how a friend recently sent me, "Claude managed to reverse engineer Bubble Bobble without using any reverse engineering tools, just inspecting the binary!" https://kotrotsos.medium.com/we-pointed-an-ai-at-raw-binary-files-from-1986-662ba30120f3
Which like, Claude is enough of a black box already but Bubble Bobble is also one of the most studied ROMs in history, so that's hard to evaluate whether it's true. You'd have to choose a less studied ROM as a test case, not Bubble Bobble, which the internet has discussed to death.
@bkuhn @evan @richardfontana @ossguy Probably a ton of people here think I am anti-AI-output, and that I would be upset to find out that the chardet rewrite were legal.
Actually, I'm not! I'd be fine with the ability to copyright launder software to some degree, as long as we could do the same for proprietary software (including in binary form).
I'm concerned about whether or not we have an *equitable* situation, though. And I'm *more concerned* that we need to advise people, who are incorporating code *today*.
-
I actually think that these copyright concepts aren't particularly automatable.
Even if we try, it's pure arms race.And the merger doctrine isn't the big problem here, it is the more complex analysis where merger doctrine clearly doesn't apply that needs analysis and I suspect the analysis is difficult to (even partially) automate.
But I'm looking into it.
Cf: chardet situation https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/355#issuecomment-4145369025
@bkuhn I just did an abstraction and filtration pass on a medium-sized application framework (~30K LOC), and as an expert on the code I think it did a good job:
https://claude.ai/share/071ccb69-5d22-4673-905a-362d9663e7d0
It missed a few things (e.g. relay specs). Then again, I have no idea how this kind of review is supposed to work. I didn't go down to the function or statement level -- that'd probably be much noisier.
Maybe chardet 2 and 7 would be a better test of the technique?
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I say "good outcome", and I'm not saying it's an outcome I want, because "what I want" is pretty complicated here. I'm saying, it's the only one where there is the possibility of legal output from these tools that can safely be incorporated into FOSS projects *at all* that is *equitable* for both FOSS and proprietary situations.
And yup, unfortunately, that would mean copyright-laundering of FOSS codebases through LLMs would be possible to strip copyleft.
It would also mean the same for proprietary codebases.
Frankly I think it would kind of rule if we stabbed copyright in the gut that badly, but there's so much vested interest from various copyright holding corporations, I don't think we're likely to get that. Do you?
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I'd don't see a great way out of the copyright stripping conclusions for them without changes to the law. As I understand their defense for training on copyrighted materials - it's predicated on the models being a "transformative" and not competing directly with the original works in the market. The models themselves don't compete with the training material only their outputs do - and the LLM companies want any liability for that to be on users not them.
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I'd don't see a great way out of the copyright stripping conclusions for them without changes to the law. As I understand their defense for training on copyrighted materials - it's predicated on the models being a "transformative" and not competing directly with the original works in the market. The models themselves don't compete with the training material only their outputs do - and the LLM companies want any liability for that to be on users not them.
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Under this view it doesn't matter how the training data was licensed as it's a fair use defense. The outputs being uncopyrightable / effectively public domain allows people to claim they wrote it when it's convenient and they want to be able to copyright it as it's hard to prove if it was AI generated or human authored. And simultaneously to claim that it was the output of and LLM when they want to strip inconvenient licensing terms.
-
@bkuhn I just did an abstraction and filtration pass on a medium-sized application framework (~30K LOC), and as an expert on the code I think it did a good job:
https://claude.ai/share/071ccb69-5d22-4673-905a-362d9663e7d0
It missed a few things (e.g. relay specs). Then again, I have no idea how this kind of review is supposed to work. I didn't go down to the function or statement level -- that'd probably be much noisier.
Maybe chardet 2 and 7 would be a better test of the technique?
If I were going to productize this, I'd do AF passes on a huge training dataset like The Stack and generate some kind of fingerprint for each program. (Estimated cost: billions!)
https://huggingface.co/datasets/bigcode/the-stack
Then, I'd have a tool to let you fingerprint your own code and C it against the big database -- maybe give you a list of high-similarity codebases.
And you could re-run the comparison each time you push to Git -- maybe only Cing what changed.
-
(2/5) … In https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ ,
Denver's key points are: we *have* to (a) be open to *listening* to people who want to contribute #FOSS with #LLM-backed generative #AI systems, & (b) work collaboratively on a *plan* of how we can solve the current crisis.Nothing ever got done politically that was good when both sides become more entrenched, refuse to even concede the other side has some valid points, & each say the other is the Enemy. …
@bkuhn @wwahammy @silverwizard @cwebber "Nothing ever got done politically that was good when both sides become more entrenched, refuse to even concede the other side has some valid points, & each say the other is the Enemy. … "
Now that is a really strange thing to hear from someone who is representing a FOSS community, because that's basically what FOSS *is*
