these issues happen independent of llms. in both oss and commercial code. and trust me in the latter case it was quite a bad move by that person. its def true that copied code will happen wirh llms, but that doesnt address recognizing it
my key point is that the training surface of plausible haskell source codes is such that it will be very readily discernible. i think my earlier point that haskell code styles have very legible finger prints wrt their provenance still stands. im not saying it wont happen, im saying itll be frigging obvious assuming cognitive load for reviewers is humane. which is perhaps a more important axes. it does suggest an important point that matters too: if these tools help up skill some numbrt of future contributors, the real challenfe will be how does code review evolve to match the load?! On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 2:44 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Carter, am I right that you're making the claim that we don't need to be > concerned about copyright infringement with LLMs, because LLMs are > literally incapable of producing infringing text for GHC? > > You might be interested to look at this LLM submission to the OCaml > compiler. The LLM not only copied large swathes of code from another > project, but it in fact blurted out copyright headers, marking the code as > copywritten by somebody else: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369 > > You've also referenced Google v. Oracle; worth noting that was a suit > claiming $9 billion in damages, and was argued all the way up to the > Supreme Court. Additionally, it was not even decided unanimously. > > I'm not able to share your apparent certainty that there's no possibility > of legal entanglements here. > > Tom > > > > On 09/01/2026 8:11 PM CEST Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > yes, because code is math, and sometimes theres only one proof, and > copyright doesnt protect factual stuff just the ultra soecific exact > sentence (except when its literally the only sane way to say soemthing). > > > > there is a huge amount of law / case law / history for how this works, > and fortunately literally here means verbatim > > > > naively these two remarks sound contradictory, but its really a > reflection of the anthropogenic complexity of humanity > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you define “exact literal content” so broadly as to allow for > translations > > > of prose, why wouldn't it also apply to translating software to > different > > > languages or using different naming conventions and other minor code > style > > > elements? > > > > > > On 9/1/26 19:50, Carter Schonwald 'carter.schonwald at gmail.com ( > http://gmail.com)' wrote: > > > > translations are explicitly reusing the exact literal content, and > theres > > > > explicitly carve outs in modern law around translated works > > > > > > > > > > > > math and food recipes are explicitly not protected by copyright law. > > > > > > > > i hope that helps clarify? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > building dimilar code for a similar task in a > > > > > different language is definitely not infringing unless its also > copying > > > > all > > > > > the text from the source application like some sort of text rpg. > > > > What if we compare this to literature? Surely a translation of a > book into > > > > another language is still considered a derivative work, even if it > reuses none > > > > of the “literal text”. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
