Pretty shocking that something this bad was pushed to you, then, no?

The output of the LLM can be incorporated into copyrighted material and is copyright free. I never claimed that the copyright on the original work was lost.

That is absolutely not true. It doesn’t remove the copyright from the original work and no court has ruled as such.

Sorry, I just got around to this message. That is the idea of the provenance – clearly, the canonical work is copyright. It is the version that has been stripped of its provenance via the LLM that no longer retains its copyright (because as I pointed out, LLM outputs cannot be copyright).

I can read your code, learn from it, and create my own code with the knowledge gained from your code without violating an OSS license.

Why is Clean-room design a thing then?

You can’t “train” on code you haven’t copied. That is kind of obvious, right? So did they have the right to copy and then reproduce the work without attribution?

Training proprietary LLMs on open source code is shitty, rent-seeking behavior, but not really a unique development, and certainly not something that undermines the core value of open source.

Destroying “share alike” doesn’t undermine the core value of open source? What IS the core value?

That’s the TIME magazine cover, buddy.

Copyleft software isn’t supposed to just be repackaged as proprietary, though. Permissive licenses, sure - but people know what they were signing up for (presumably) there.

Do you understand how free software works? Did you read the post? I’d love to clarify, but I’m not going to rewrite the article.