That's generally how it's being done. The robot reads the code and writes specs. Then another robot reads the specs and writes code. If courts still accept the traditional clean room defense (and why wouldn't they?) then they're probably going to say it isn't a derived work.

It looks like the big catch, the actual source of uncertainty, is that the instance of the robot that reads the specs and writes code, may have seen the original code as part of its training data. That'll be enough to keep it from being a true clean room. In those cases, you'll be totally right.

But for any particular given project, was it trained on the original code? That'll be a case-by-case thing, and I think in a very long-term way, the answer will increasingly be No, simply because codebots' need to keep training on newly-published code, will diminish.

As an analogy, imagine you're a human author, and for some weird reason, one thing you like to do is have people tell you high-level plot summaries (specs) and then you write a detailed story from that. Someone says "the moon is unusually bright one night and people fear something bad has happened" and you write a story much like Larry Niven's Inconstant Moon, from that prompt alone. And you do this with 100 more stories, and most of them honestly don't appear to be derived. You take specs like "bombardier has crazy war experiences" and your resulting story is nothing like Catch-22.

But then one day, you're up in the attic and you find an old box that's been sitting there for decades, and inside, you find an old, worn, dog-eared paperback of Larry Niven stories which happens to include Inconstant Moon. Oh shit, you must have read that 45 years ago and then somehow "forgot" that you had, so your story wasn't truly independent of Niven's work. Your story turned out to not be "clean" at all, whoops! It was a derived work after all, because you read it ("trained on it") when you were a kid.

But the other 100 stories? Nope, those really were clean. Your story-writing process was almost legally foolproof, except that you had to learn reading and writing at some point, so your childhood favorites needed to be off-limits.

The heat wave made March be like late spring. Things that normally bloom in May, bloomed in March. And yesterday I got my first MRGCD irrigation of the year, flooding my back yard and letting the shade trees greedily suck up the water. We're spending a lot more time outside on the patio, compared to previous years during this time-of-year.

If I were stupid, I would be out of my mind with pleasure. Things feel wonderful right now.

But that water I just got .. that is The snowpack, probably. Instead of getting it all throughout summer, this first irrigation is probably the last, or second-to-last.

This summer is going to SUCK.

So begin the Obfuscated Object Code Compiler wars, to keep robots from writing machine language decompilers. The next few years are gonna be a wild ride!

If a computer program ingests code (whether GPL or not) and then outputs some code, the big question is whether or not the resulting code is a derived work.

If it's not a derived work, then the license of the original code is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter if it's GPLed, fully proprietary, or somewhere in between. The license has no say in the matter, because nobody ever needs to agree to the license; whatever they're doing is legal under copyright law so they already had all the permission they needed, without ever needing the additional rights granted by a license.

If it is a derived work, then that's copyright infringement unless the person who does it has permission. And the only way to get permission (i.e. cause copyright infringement to have not happened) is to agree to the license. So yes, the output would have to be GPLed.

But I don't think we really know whether or not robots reading code and then writing code from what they "learned," are creating derived works. Ask again in a few years, after a few court cases. This is hard. Rational people can disagree and come up with pretty good arguments no matter what side they're on. We'll see what the courts decide.

I think the most interesting case for determining it, won't involve a GPLed input. It'll be if Anthropic sues this project, since they will have contributed arguments to both sides. They'll have to argue "it is a derived work" in court, but to all their customers, they have and will continue to preach "it's not a derived work."

You say "two separate teams," but Claude pronounces it as "two separate processes with no IPC except the specs files."

The point of buying Trumpcoin is to pay a bribe. You just need to remember to communicate what you want in exchange for the purchase, out of band.

It's a really good system, but making it tax-deferred would make it even better. Since the goal is for Trump to end up with all the value, a Trumpcoin's value should be 0 by the time you're required to take distributions. That way, there's effectively no tax on your bribe. Win/win for everyone.

U.S. representatives excoriated the outcome as further proof of the organization's [WTO's] irrelevance.

I hate this administration's general anti-American attitude, extreme thirst for growing national debt, and overall lawless criminality, but the above quote nevertheless excites me. I wish to subscribe to the aforementioned representatives' newsletter.

If we don't need WTO, then I bet we don't need WIPO. And if we don't need to be a signatory of the WIPO treaty anymore, then we don't need DMCA.

Hey Pedoph-- er I mean-- let me start over.

Hey glorious leader Trump, people are saying you're too chicken to tell Johnson and Thune to repeal DMCA. Surely that's not true. Are you going to let them all get away with calling you chicken?

I think they're arguing that they are the third thing, a message parlor.

Unions are a real-life strategy because they work. Divide-and-conquer is also a real-life strategy, because it works too.

Thus, I think the truth of your statement all depends on whether you look at this conflict between government and the the people, from the point of view of the attacker, vs the point of view of the defender.

Children do not have the maturity that is required for unfiltered access to the adult world

But they used to. In the 1980s, nobody dared to say in public, that 17-year-old me should not be allowed to visit public (or even university) (or even medical) libraries. (Or if someone did, they were still very obscure and unpopular, little more than a glimmer in the left's eye.)

If I may, could I narrow down which of these two things you think is best? First, there's exactly what you said above..

Kids have no right to use end-to-end encryption without parental consent

..but I've altered it:

Kids have a right to use end-to-end encryption unless denied by a parent

Did I make it better, or did I make it worse?

I think what he meant to say, is that if Lewinsky had been a decade younger (12 instead of 22), then nothing would have happened.

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

You don't get to pick and choose what people post (with some obvious exceptions like fraud or csam), while also claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't.

Exactly, thanks for the excellent example. That's the kind of statement that nobody ever explains, but always presents as pure axiomatic dogma.

I do think that you might have revealed a clue in your unusual phrasing, though. You said "claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't" but how can there ever be any possibility of liability there? If your computer denies someone else's request to publish something, what liability is there to be immune from?

Yeah, what kind of idiot would think of using the internet to make money on porn?