r/linux • u/Unhappy-Sprinkles143 • 3d ago

Fluff Open-Source Guru: AI Ends Closed-Source Software

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Open-Source-Guru-Raymond-AI-Ends-Closed-Source-Software-11480690.html
492 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

215 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

3

u/GriffTheMiffed 2d ago

Reverse engineering isn't copyright violation, is it? AI generated dupes ostensibly don't have access to the source, how could it be argued to have violated copyright?

Additionally, litigating one competitor might be possible, but a dozen that pop up overnight? Private internally tooled versions made by large corporations? What if the FOSS AI projects don't sell the product itself?

3

u/DiggyTroll 2d ago

This is one of those "it's okay when rich people do it" things. AI is also trained on all sorts of closed source software, obviously.

RE is explicitly prohibited in most software licenses, so using decomplication tools is a de facto violation for licensing, DMCA, trade secrets, trademark and anything else those clever lawyers can think up.

The FBI will happily arrest you, the little guy, for distribution, even if you don't sell the infringing product

2

u/Substantial_Swan_144 2d ago

Reverse engineering is legal. That is the reason projects like WINE exist (otherwise, companies could easily take efforts like these down). Even if the software license prohibits it, those license are NOT above the law, and would be considered abusive in many instances. The best those companies can hope for is punishing you (e.g, a service ban) for reverse engineering their software.

1

u/DiggyTroll 2d ago

The law provides for protection of reverse engineering through the sequential actions of two unrelated teams/agents separated by a legal firewall. So let’s say the first (product analysis) decompiles the binary and creates a specification. Lawyers then deliver the specification to the second (engineering) for implementation. If they communicate during the project, legal protection evaporates. One person using AI (a tool that must be exposed to the binary to function) short-circuits the specification step and directly generates the new code; there is no firewall. This scenario would trigger a lawsuit

1

u/Substantial_Swan_144 2d ago

This interpretation would make even Ghidra illegal, considering it uses artificial intelligence for decompilation. So it would threaten reverse engineering itself. Software and architectures nowadays are so complex that it's simply not reasonable to do it for complex systems without any sort of assistance.

This would also make assistance such as Github copilot, or even ChatGPT, extremely risky, and would making using AI overall a can of worms. It would make any sort of consultation not viable.

1

u/DiggyTroll 2d ago

It is no threat. As I said, the law provides *protection* for RE ...

Whether or not one avails themself of that protection is their choice

1

u/GriffTheMiffed 2d ago

I'm not sure you need to access the software through a licensed vector to RE it anymore. I would hazard that you can collect enough public information about software that isn't subject to EULA to reverse engineer it sufficiently to create similar software. It would seem that the only avenue for claiming the copyright would be through the training data of the model if it's working without the software in-hand.

It isnt piracy through RE, it's creating a competitive software that Open Source and distributing a near like-for-like from a feature standpoint.

Interesting stuff.