Re: GHC LLM policy vs copyright
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 <code@jaro.addy.io> 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' 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 <code@jaro.addy.io <mailto: code@jaro.addy.io>> 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”.
It's true that sometimes there is only one way to implement something and I know copyright does not cover such cases. However, I think that is quite rare in software development, especially once we start looking at combinations of two or three functions.
and fortunately literally here means verbatim
naively these two remarks sound contradictory, but its really a reflection of the anthropogenic complexity of humanity
I remain utterly confused about what you mean with “literally” and “verbatim”, and thus unconvinced by your arguments. Like, are you saying that renaming all variables and functions and changing all for-loops to while-loops (using C for this example) is a valid way to avoid copyright infringement because it is no longer a literal or verbatim copy? I refuse to believe that. On 9/1/26 20:12, Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org' 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 <code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>> 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 <code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io> <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>>> > 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”. >
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 <ghc-devs@haskell.org> 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 <code@jaro.addy.io> 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 <code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>> 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 -- ghc-devs@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org
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 <amindfv@mailbox.org> 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 < ghc-devs@haskell.org> 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 <code@jaro.addy.io> 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 <code@jaro.addy.io <mailto: code@jaro.addy.io>> 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 -- ghc-devs@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org
participants (3)
-
amindfv＠mailbox.org -
Carter Schonwald -
code＠jaro.addy.io