Grit: rewriting Git in Rust with agents (blog.gitbutler.com)
from cm0002@literature.cafe to programming@programming.dev on 10 Jun 00:34
https://literature.cafe/post/32568165

#programming

threaded - newest

terabyterex@lemmy.world on 10 Jun 00:58 next collapse

i downvoted before i read the article. might want to lead with “Scott Charon” original co-founder of github.

EDIT: I just saw that the circumvented the license. i missed that, and that’s not cool.

[deleted] on 10 Jun 01:52 next collapse
.
Arghblarg@lemmy.ca on 10 Jun 02:44 next collapse

From the article:

…given the pretty massive and widespread architectural changes needed to make the implementation libified and memory safe, we decided that the codebase is not a derivative work that would require carrying forward the GPL license and have decided to release the code under the MIT instead.

I’m sorry but that pisses me right the hell off. I don’t care who it is, using this rewrite-by-LLM to work around the GPL is just going to be a pox on the global software landscape.

Basically the author is saying “if you can afford to spend $20K on tokens, buy your way around the GPL! Those with the cash can bend, nay break, the rules!”

This is just abhorrent to me. It’s STILL a derivative work, git already existed and these LLMs 100%, for sure, used knowledge from their training of the original C git implementation. Just because no one knows exactly how, where or when in the process it occurred, we know the LLMs all had access to original git in their training data.

nialv7@lemmy.world on 10 Jun 02:49 collapse

rewrite by llm to workaround GPL

iirc someone started a company doing just that.

Arghblarg@lemmy.ca on 10 Jun 02:52 next collapse

…and they deserve eternal damnation for the idea, IMO. Hrrmph. LLMs by definition can only make derivative works. That’s what they do, draw from their training on other works by humans. They are nothing without the training data. Data which was scraped from the entire f*cking Internet, without anyone’s permissions. Why is this so hard for devs to understand?

Yes, I am grumpy about this.

Solemarc@lemmy.world on 10 Jun 08:19 collapse

I feel like rewriting a GPL thing based on the GPL version should require the GPL licence. After all, you’ve built something on top of GPL code which means it’s also GPL right?

If I go and build my own implimentation of GTK, how do I even prove that I made it entirely without looking at GTK because that’s what’s required to relicense right?

Solely from the fact that I’m telling you I made my own implementation of GTK, I’m admitting It’s not clean room right?

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works on 10 Jun 10:06 collapse

I feel like rewriting a GPL thing based on the GPL version should require the GPL licence. After all, you’ve built something on top of GPL code which means it’s also GPL right?

No. Not even a little. It’s a copyright, not a patent.

Solemarc@lemmy.world on 10 Jun 12:24 collapse

I still feel like it should apply, this is the first term of the gpl:

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The “Program”, below, refers to any such program or work, and a “work based on the Program” means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language

“I rewrote it in another language as a library instead of an exe” is still covered under this term isn’t it?

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works on 11 Jun 02:21 next collapse

Nope.

anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 11 Jun 10:11 collapse

APIs don’t fall under copyright, but implementations do. This is a good thing, otherwise we couldn’t have linux or wine, because they used apis from unix and windows respectively, or open source implementations of anything.
If you look at how another program does something to, you are bound by it’s license, but if you only look at what it does you are not.

garbage_world@lemmy.world on 10 Jun 02:52 next collapse

MIT?

mEEGal@lemmy.world on 10 Jun 07:28 next collapse

Daaaaamn, I love gitbutler ! Shame the’yre doing it this way (circumventing the GPL) …

StripedMonkey@lemmy.zip on 11 Jun 05:49 collapse

Honestly it’s not even that. Gitoxide exists, is permissive, gitbutler pays for work from the maintainer of gitoxide, and it’s not even like gitoxide is adverse to AI.

There’s no point to what they’re doing.

fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works on 10 Jun 19:51 next collapse

Why do Rust projects have to keep sucking license wise?

Like I like the languages goals. Mozzilla even made the MPL along with it! Why go rug pull licenese type everytime?

calcopiritus@lemmy.world on 11 Jun 04:34 collapse

The standard way to link in rust is statically.

Due to a technicality, statically linking a GPL library means the final program has to be GPL too. So they basically can’t make GPL libraries.

Why not use LGPL instead of MIT? Idk.

FizzyOrange@programming.dev on 11 Jun 07:11 collapse

Interesting, but why not just use Gitoxide?