I strongly agree. LLM’s have eviscerated the core idea and motivation behind using the GPL, in a way I didn’t at all see coming. We’ve published a lot of very unique GPL code (eg in sagemath), which anybody can now easily “regenerate” as part of some other closed (or open) software using an LLM. They wouldn’t even know they are creating a derived work of our GPL code. I have had to come to terms with this...
I don't think this is as clear as you say it is. If a person "regenerates" GPL code from memory, it will still be a copyright violation. LLMs can't own copyright on their own, so a person must be responsible for the result. So it should be a violation. GPL should help (if you actually sue).
Comments
I strongly agree. LLM’s have eviscerated the core idea and motivation behind using the GPL, in a way I didn’t at all see coming. We’ve published a lot of very unique GPL code (eg in sagemath), which anybody can now easily “regenerate” as part of some other closed (or open) software using an LLM. They wouldn’t even know they are creating a derived work of our GPL code. I have had to come to terms with this...
I don't think this is as clear as you say it is. If a person "regenerates" GPL code from memory, it will still be a copyright violation. LLMs can't own copyright on their own, so a person must be responsible for the result. So it should be a violation. GPL should help (if you actually sue).