Den Blanchard, developer of the chardet library for character encoding detection in Python, has released a new version of the library under a new license. Version 7.0 uses the MIT license instead of the LGPL license. The developer claims that the AI assistant Anthropic Claude, who is now listed as a contributor, rewrote the library without using the original code, allowing him to replace the copyleft license with a permissive one.
A user joined the discussion, identifying himself as Marc Pilgrim, the original creator of the library (unfortunately, this user's account is empty, making it impossible to verify if he is who he claims to be) and created an issue stating that Den does not have the rights to change the project's license.
Den rebutted that he compared versions 7.0.0 and 6.0.0 using plagiarism detection software and the similarity between the versions amounted to less than 1.3%. According to him, no file in the codebase of version 7.0.0 resembles any file from any previous release.
Den explained that he wanted the chardet library to be included in Python's standard library, as it is a key dependency for many Python projects. However, three obstacles were preventing integration: license, speed, and accuracy. As a result of the work done, the library's encoding detection speed increased by 48 times. For a project that is actively used in many other projects, this optimization will lead to significant performance improvements for millions of users (the package is downloaded about 130 million times a month).
Zoe Coyman, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, told The Register, "We cannot comment on the specific details or legality of this project without further investigation or consultation with lawyers, but there is nothing 'clean' about a large language model (LLM) using code that it is required to rewrite."
U tom je trenutku Zoe odlučila dati moralnu ocjenu Denovom postupku: „Što se tiče smisla GPL-a, permisivna licenca tehnički je i dalje licenca slobodnog softvera, ali podrivanje copyleft-a je ozbiljan postupak. Odbijanje davanja drugih prava onima koji su ih sami dobili kao korisnici iznimno je antisocijalno, bez obzira na korištenu metodu.”
Bruce Perens, autor originalne definicije otvorenog izvora, izrazio je zabrinutost zbog situacije: „Nadolazeće društvene promjene su osjetno velike, i, kako već vidimo, još više zastrašujuće.”
Pravne posljedice korištenja velikih jezičnih modela za preradu otvorenih i vlasničkih projekata (čiji je izvorni kod ukraden) teško je predvidjeti i uvelike ovise o presedanima koje stvaraju sudovi. Ipak, ako veliki jezični model prepisuje kod na programski jezik koji se razlikuje od originala, dokazivanje stvaranja izvedenog djela postaje praktički nemoguće.
Nedavno je Vrhovni sud SAD-a odbio preispitivanje slučaja „Thaler protiv Perlmutter”, u kojem je tužitelj pokušavao poništiti odluku nižeg suda, prema kojoj nije mogao zaštititi autorskim pravom sliku stvorenu umjetnom inteligencijom. Vrhovni sud SAD-a potvrdio je presudu nižeg suda da djela koja su u potpunosti stvorena AI-jem nisu zaštićena autorskim pravom.
Izvor: opennet.ru
