Post

> 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. oh someone wants to get sued.

Given that whatever LLM they're using under the hood is almost certainly trained on the Git source code, even if they didn't also make the Git source code available to the LLMs (which they well may have), and the test code is anyway also copyrighted and GPL-licensed... Good luck, buddies.

This is like me deciding that my AI upscale of INCEPTION which also recuts it in the order suggested by that one Reddit post "isn't a derivative work" just because I say so

Big red flag here: "especially given the pretty massive and widespread architectural changes needed to make the implementation libified and memory safe". "Magnitude of changes" does not affect copyright. If you start from the original it's always a derivative work no matter how much you change it

> "Magnitude of changes" does not affect copyright. If you start from the original it's always a derivative work no matter how much you change it False. BSDi v. AT&T.

This one? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_Sy....

It looks like it settled out of court

...Yeah that's an incredibly important detail for me to not recall. My recollection is that prior to the case being settled USL was not very successful, hence the settlement for "well you only need to remove only six files"

But this was also an exceptional case in that Net/2 was ALREADY the result of UCB removing potentially infringing code. BSD had diverged greatly from AT&T Unix at that point so to the best of their knowledge the release was all stuff they'd done themselves.

(Meaning that it's not precedential)

My read of this just based on the Wikipedia article is that the judge likely believed that knowledge of and access to the source code of the original did not automatically confer copyright to the subsequent files, but it looks to me like the students removed the copyrighted files and wrote their own