> On 08/22/2026 1:46 PM CEST andrew.lelechenko--- via ghc-devs > <[email protected]> wrote: > [...]
Without weighing in at all on the Haskell Foundation's decision, I must ask: don't these two adjacent sentences contradict one another?: > Given that hundreds of major companies all over the world use LLMs to write > their cherished all-rights-reserved software (= their stakes to lose > copyright are much more significant than for GHC team) and their lawyers are > seemingly satisfied with it, there does not seem to be an immediate or > visible danger. > Ultimately at the moment all legal opinions on LLMs are a coin toss, until > the matter is actually tested by courts. The fact that "hundreds of major companies" have made a risk-reward calculation and landed on the side of LLM use doesn't seem like very firm footing for a project that's invaluable and needs to be with us long after many of these companies have bitten the dust. Small companies may have decided they need to take the risk in order to keep up short-term profits; larger companies may have decided they have the army of lawyers and strategic relationships that make the risks worth taking. Neither of these strategies make good sense for GHC. Certainly hundreds of other companies have decided _against_ the use of LLMs on grounds of intellectual property and trade secret protections. To decide not to worry about GHC's copyright status because lawyers for other companies have made a decision -- a decision whose reasoning was hidden from us -- seems dangerously close to cargo-culting. Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
