News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by eru on Monday March 30, 2026 @03:59AM (#47571647)
As long as they don't distribute the model's weights, even a strict interpretation of the GPL should be fine. Same reason Google doesn't have to upstream changes to the Linux kernel they only deploy in-house.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by fsflover on Monday March 30, 2026 @06:07AM (#47572455)
How about AGPL?
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by eru on Tuesday March 31, 2026 @12:22AM (#47582733)
Sure, that one was specifically designed to close that loophole.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by oblio on Monday March 30, 2026 @07:34AM (#47572958)
But LLMs do distribute the derived code they generate outside of their company. That's their entire point.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by Akronymus on Monday March 30, 2026 @08:49AM (#47573618)
But wouldn't that be like some company using gpl licensed code to host a code generator for something? At least in a legal interpretation. Or is that different?
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by oblio on Monday March 30, 2026 @12:03PM (#47576024)
And why would that be different or allowed? Sure, you get all the code you want, GPL licensed.

Everybody is trying to have their cake and eat it, too, by license laundering.

Heck, money laundering means you at least lose some of the money.

Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by Akronymus on Monday March 30, 2026 @12:05PM (#47576049)
I have no idea. I genuinly was asking out of curiosity on what the law actually means for that while speculating.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by advael on Monday March 30, 2026 @11:57AM (#47575917)
I mean, is the case you're making that you can run a SaaS business on GPL-derived code without fulfilling GPL obligations because you're not distributing a binary?
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by Akronymus on Monday March 30, 2026 @11:59AM (#47575960)
I guess I am. I genuinly am just a layperson trying to look at what the law would say, so everything is speculation.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by advael on Monday March 30, 2026 @12:49PM (#47576693)
If true that would seem to invalidate the entire GPL, but even by that logic, a website (such as chatGPT) distributes javascript that runs the code, and programs like claude code also do so. Again, if you can slip the GPL's requirements through indirection like having your application go phone home to your server to go get the infringing parts, the GPL would essentially unenforceable in... most contexts
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by fragmede on Monday March 30, 2026 @03:55PM (#47578959)
That's where the AGPL comes in. The GPL(v2) does not require eg Google or Facebook to release any of the changes they've made to the Linux kernel. That they do so is not because of a legal obligation to do so. The "to get parts" thing is the relevant detail to be very specific on. If those parts are a binary that is used, then the GPL does kick in, but for distributing source code that's possibly derived, possibly not covered by copyright, it's not been decided in a court of law yet.
Re:Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again by eru on Tuesday March 31, 2026 @12:21AM (#47582729)
Yes, that's exactly what people do and did. That 'loophole' is the whole reason people came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...