Comment by Philpax
2 months ago
> In looking at the code that the LLMs have produced for the project, especially given the pretty massive and widespread architectural changes needed to make the implementation libified and memory safe, we decided that the codebase is not a derivative work that would require carrying forward the GPL license and have decided to release the code under the MIT instead.
Hmm. That's going to be interesting.
A translation of a book to a different language is a derivative work. So a translation of a computer program to a different programming language is also. But if in the translation of the book you start altering the plot and the personalities of that characters, does it at some point become not a derivative work? What point? IANAL, and I have no real idea, but I imagine that point has been probed significantly in case-law with respect to creative works. Given the current climate of ever-expanding scope of "intellectual property", if they admit that the LLM had access to git source code then I would say their case is weak at best.
The agents.md says “here’s the git source code” https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/blob/main/AGENTS.md#sou...
This isn’t even a question of training data, thy fed the full git source code directly to the llm.
I would say it's worse, the whole C Git source code is checked in https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/tree/main/git
I wonder if imitating clean room reverse engineering with two LLMs would be enough for licence compliance.
1 reply →
> translation.
It's not technically a translation, it's a re-implementation, with test suites acting as the destination. If it was a file by file translation your argument would have been valid.
Git is part of the LLM's training set though, so simply asking it to recreate git in another language is pretty equivalent. Like, you can almost certainly get these LLMs to output gits full source code with some prompting, so there's not that much difference (as much as we like to pretend that AI generated code has no copyright implications)
14 replies →
Wouldn't a re-implementation be akin to 'heres how it works, write the code' rather than 'heres the code, redo it in rust'?
Yes, but as soon as copyright became a problem for very rich people parts of it were cancelled.
1) re-implementation for compatibility (which was quickly "reestablished" through use of copyright-protecting encryption. In other words: do you get to write software that connects to MS/Apple/Google/Facebook servers without authorization from those companies? Yes. Do you get to copy an encryption key from their software to make it possible? No)
and, more recently,
2) violating copyright for LLM training
and, currently mostly attempted:
3) "uncopyrighting" run software through an LLM, and some people "believe" it comes out with your copyright on it! Because very rich people want to sell uncopyrighting.
Ie. the jury's still out what will happen when it's billionnaire vs billionnaire.
Of course, the question is what happens the second someone does this with a disney movie, or a big microsoft application ...
> Yes, but as soon as copyright became a problem for very rich people parts of it were cancelled.
When copyright law was established, not many poor people owned printing presses. That is to say, copyright law is a PROTECTION to the very rich, not an inconvenience
1 reply →
Mathematically, does similarity/intelligibility of one equation to another have any bearing on whether the one was derived from the other? Philosophically? Legally? I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that's the crux of the matter to me: did you start with something, and iterate from it (even if it was so many times as to be transformed beyond recognition), or is it something more akin to clean-room reverse engineering?
Related, software API compability is not a derivate work, or eligible to protection, as ruled in the US and in the EU. Google, SAP R/3, etc. cases.
Or SCO Vs IBM.
If everything would be a derivate work we would not Linux.
Well, there's lots of really interesting opinions here from a lot of armchair lawyers.
To clarify, my stance on this is that the reimplementation did not copy protected expressions (Jplag reports less than 1.8% max similarity between the codebases), it's done in good faith, and it's what's best for the broader Git ecosystem (assuming Grit even becomes usable, which it's currently not purported to be).
From a copyright standpoint, however, only the first argument there is relevant. Grit is an independently authored implementation of Git-compatible behavior, with negligible similarity to Git source code.
I think antirez summarized the situation quite well and I broadly agree with his position: https://antirez.com/news/162
I think that those in the community who know me and have worked with me in the Git and open source communities for the last 20 years know that my intentions are to contribute, share and foster innovation and learning. Many of the main authors of the Git source code are friends of mine and I have no intention to steal anything from anyone, only to make their great ideas more broadly useful.
Have you addressed anywhere why you chose not to keep the copyleft license? It burns a lot of goodwill to use an AI for what many people will see as copyright laundering, and git has done just fine with the GPL, so it doesn’t seem like a blocker for adoption. What do you get from stripping the copyleft?
https://blog.gitbutler.com/series-a likely has a large part to play in it.
By which I mean, what do we imagine a16z thinks of the [L]GPL?
My brief experience in a startup exposed to them is that a16z seems willing to fund "infrastructure" projects more than most, but they did seem to have a ready set of answers on what "open source" means in that context.
(If someone can find me an a16z funded team that published copylefted code, I'll take this back.)
EDIT: Ok, i'll eat my hat, Gemini found me some counterexamples
3 replies →
Hey AI, please change my stolen code in a non-breaking way so that jplag reports less than 1,8% similarity.
I mean ”hey artist, take this stolen character and make them legally distinct” is already a common thing.
3 replies →
> Many of the main authors of the Git source code are friends of mine and I have no intention to steal anything from anyone, only to make their great ideas more broadly useful.
By working-around/subverting the terms they provided their contributions under? While you claim to be doing this in good faith, and state "it's what's best for the broader Git ecosystem", that's all based on your own opinion which appears to ignore the benefits and intent of licenses such as the GPL.
Out of interest, Would you be happy for someone to do the same with the GitButler source code? (Feed it through an LLM and re-publish the result under an MIT license with different branding)
> Would you be happy for someone to do the same with the GitButler source code?
Honestly, that would be pretty awesome. We would be flattered.
My question here is not whether it's legally permissible. I'll leave that to others.
It's WTF is wrong with this next generation of devs ? ... that they have such a problem with the GPL that they think it's important to rewrite and relicense and take away a legal structure which is supposed to protect our free software?
I can imagine some concerns with Git being written in C.
I cannot understand any legitimate concerns with its license that it needs to change.
What does the GPL stop people doing with git? And if there are some... why are people trying to do that? And why would you work for free to help people do it? [Edit: I see, you're not working for free.]
Missing an 'f' in the project name.
The original git had a command line interface. It's widely assumed that using a GPL'd program in your program through the command line does not cause the GPL to "infect" your program.
OTOH, one of the major reasons for grit is to provide a library interface. If they kept it GPL, anything that used grit through the library interface would have to also become GPL.
This could be the "legitimate concern" you're asking for.
But the LGPL was also an option -- it addresses that arguably legitimate concern and keeps the spirit of the original license.
4 replies →
GPL makes sure that the code remains open. Seems like these new gen devs are against open source.
5 replies →
Is there a point in license laundering? Where GPL stifles git adoption?
You know I think if you'd just committed to clean rooming it you'd be fine, but you didn't.
Now you're caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: if the AI did no creative work, then you're definitely in violation of the original GPL license.
If the AI did do creative work that breaks GPL, you still didn't, which leaves you with the problem that you cannot in good faith license a thing which you don't own. No creative work? No ownership claim. There's precious little (if any) of your creativity in copy pasting 4000 tests and a link to the original source code and saying "copy this in Rust".
The flagrant display of cynicism you make in arguing that the ends justify the means (even if a result is the wholesale looting of open source) disgusts me, and if I could communicate to you only one thing it should be that you should not be surprised that other people are also disgusted by behavior like that even when it falls within the letter of the law (a claim I have not yet seen you rigorously defend).
Man, all they had to do was LGPL it and there'd be no ill will.
Are you a trained lawyer? Okay but presumably not practicing in the last twenty years.
You know that all contributions to the Git project has to be signed off as either being made by yourself or being handed over by someone who has signed off on that certficate of origin. For everyone on every change. Even the lead developers so to speak. And you spend some thousands of dollars and run an AI analyis tool to wash your hands?
Who are you to do that? Oh wait I forgot, you are Mr. Chacon. A hand in everything Git and friendly with everyone in Git who matters for twenty years. Remind us next time as well so I don’t forget.
they would be just wrong. I hope someone with standing sues
I don't think it's that clear cut. The functional parts probably aren't copyrightable, only the stylistic ones. It's going to be a mix of courts applying laws in new ways that hasn't been done before and fact specific questions about what actually persisted through the LLM if it goes to court.
I'd be fascinated to see what happens if it does. Both in the analyses that we'd get of what the LLM did to the codebase and on the legal decisions on what the copyrightable creative elements in code actually are.
If I was the author though... there would be no way that I would be volunteering to be a test case like this. Also seems just rude for no reason.
It probably would have been less bad if he had chosen MPL-2.0 or LGPL-2.1-or-later. But he chose MIT, which cuts at the core of the intent of licensing the project with a share-alike license.
20 replies →
If feeding the source code through a complier yields a derivative work, why wouldn't feeding it to an LLM give the same result?
3 replies →
functional parts not being copyrightable means that you can't claim a program is a copyright violation based on the fact it does the exact same thing based on compatibility reasons (you can copy what the program does). E.g. git stores refs in .git/refs, so does grit, that's not a violation. You still can't copy the program.
3 replies →
I suspect that the issue is more likely that the LLM code doesn't have an author and hence some parts of it can't be licenses, it's less likely that it's infringing on git's copyright for various reasons. (I am not a lawyer, but I do read copyright law for funsies).
https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html
> It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.
Well that's interesting.
1 reply →
why wouldn't it? If you run git through a compiler it's still copyright the git devs, same if you run it through an LLM.
3 replies →
Make a small contribution to git then sue
Related:
Malus – Clean Room as a Service https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47350424
Just like for 1984 and the Torment Nexus, someone took the concept not as warning but as instruction manual.
Knowing what you don't know is such an important skill in life and your career. And I 100% agree with you that the author is, well, off their rocker.
Let me give an example: I could take Goldeneye from the N64, extract the binary and then run it through an LLM to disassemble it and possibly rewrite it in a modern higher-level language. Do you think Nintendo would look at that and say "well, he did a lot of work so he's escaped our license"? Of course not. It's just silly.
ingesting the source code and producing output in another language is quite clearly a derivative work. You don't need to be an IP lawyer to figure that out.
Now, if you went to Calude and gave it documentation and told it to produce something that was compatible, would that be a derivative work and thus covered by the GPL? I would guess probably. But I'm not 100% sure anymore. I wouldn't risk it however.
Here's another thought experiment: what if someone takes this supposedly MIT licensed source tree, plugs it into another LLM and asks it to produce the output in C? Now how is it licensed? It might be very similar. After all, there are only so many ways to produce a SHA1 hash and so many ways to do a command line parser.
But this then makes it an interesting legal issue. In the Oracle v. Google court case, this was a key issue. Google successfully argued there's only so many ways to write a loop so just because a loop is similar to the source, that doesn't mean it's copyright infringement (as Oracle argued).
Anyway, it's a crazy position to take.
> Knowing what you don't know is such an important skill in life and your career. And I 100% agree with you that the author is, well, off their rocker.
They aren't the only ones - look at the number of people in this thread who are arguing that this is analogous to producing a movie with ffmpeg - just because ffmpeg is GPL, does not make your movie GPL.
I am struggling to understand how such a high level of cognitive dissonance is possible: They believe both a) that the license can be laundered in this manner, and that b) the license they put on the result is effective!
Well that is already how it is done with numerous multi-decade open rewrites of closed games. They usually require the asset pack.
I don't know how this squares with law, but Oracle v Google gave a very valuable judgment to the public that an API is not copywritable. If we take the LLM out of it, that's all we are talking about in the pure case.
Of course, we can't take the LLM out, but it is the starting point.
> Well that is already how it is done with numerous multi-decade open rewrites of closed games
Serious such rewrites don't start with the code of the closed game!
> I don't know how this squares with law, but Oracle v Google gave a very valuable judgment to the public that an API is not copywritable. If we take the LLM out of it, that's all we are talking about in the pure case.
Not at all. The LLM used to write grit has seen the git code. That is what we're talking about here.
> Of course, we can't take the LLM out, but it is the starting point.
The LLM isn't the important thing. The important thing is that the git source code was used to make grit.
2 replies →
heh - https://github.com/n64decomp/007
game decompilation and emulation is as old as computing
> Do you think Nintendo would look at that and say "well, he did a lot of work so he's escaped our license"? Of course not. It's just silly.
That's because you're re-using assets.
Obligatory: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327
Not a fan of this trend of "cleaning" GPL licensed software and releasing under permissive licenses. Also why I'm not a fan of UUtils nor Canonical's early adoption of it in Ubuntu.
The intent here is extraction of all the value provided by copyleft projects without the obligation to give back. Wether it's technically legal or not, it's disgusting behavior IMO.
It is also rather ungrateful. The only reason we have Linux desktops today, and the only reason companies like Red Hat and Canonical has a billion dollar business model is the GPL.
The BSDs had a head start, and were superior in almost every way for the better part of a decade at least, but have remained niche compared to Linux. It's not even close. Now, there may be many other reasons to this, including the personalities and culture of the Linux developers, but you simply can't ignore the impact of the license which have kept all the commercial Linux products inside the fold.
I agree, I certainly can't comment on the legality of this license laundering but I would call them an asshole.
That’s explicitly not what’s happening with uutils; they have contributed fixes and test cases back to upstream
And just like that, it was forked by Microsoft a few days ago. Handed to them on a silver platter.
> Not a fan of this trend of "cleaning" GPL licensed software > Wether it's technically legal or not, it's disgusting behavior IMO.
GNU was originally developed to "clean" UNIX from the AT&T license.
I'm not a copyright lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me you can't wash a license using an LLM.
[US jurisdiction]: Anything in the result written by the LLM can not be copyright by anyone.
Anything in the result written by a human can be, and if it was all emitted by the LLM then that portion originally written by a human carries its own copyright.
As a work of an LLM, the entirety presumably can not be copyright, at all. Portions written by humans presumably carry their original copyright.
> [US jurisdiction]: Anything in the result written by the LLM can not be copyright by anyone.
This is a bit stronger than the actual report where this has been discussed finds. See part 2 in https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ for details, but TL;DR, parts where humans have control over the expression may be copyrightable. But working out which parts those are is likely a difficult question (would likely require proof of provenance across many of those LLM sessions)
This is not a proper black-box reimplementation, I doubt they can get away with that. And that's not mentioning all other obvious ethical concerns of course.
black-box/clean-room isn't necessarily required, though. It does make it a lot harder to argue in court, of course.
Particularly because LLM generated code is not licensable in any way. If you wrote it with an LLM you cannot own it.
I don't care if they can convince a judge. The fact that they even want to in the first place tells me what kind of people they are.
F-ing scumbags. It's already free, but they still decide to steal it.
An idea...
Take this (assuming it's not slop), relicence as GPL, submit upstream (imagine it's accepted for a moment...).
If they proceed with license washing then from the Rust version, it's certainly derived work.