You seem to assume that cross-language copyright infringement is impossible and that copyright infringement must involve either very local things like naming conventions or global things like architecture.
I am not learned in software IP law, but the above assumptions seem plainly false from the little I do know. It could just be a few functions from another project, possibly in a different programming language, adapted to Haskell and the GHC naming conventions. Also, there are plenty of compilers or just general libraries written in Haskell which contain code that could also be used in GHC. The fact that there is little comparable code in the training set could also mean the LLM is more likely to copy a significant part of a single project as there is less code to “learn” from. Cheers, Jaro On 9/1/26 17:26, Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org' wrote: > this copyright thread confuses me, because …. what Haskell code thats public > could these model echo into a ghc edit that isnt gonna be basically ghc code? > the architecture and naming conventions and code style is quite distinct > and > theres very few salient hs code bases that would actually be salient, and > translating an algorithm or data structure from one programming language does > not create copyright risk wrt the translated code except to the extent string > literals or specific data is copyrighted… > > i would love examples that ground the ip risk with > > now if we were talking abiut a bsd open source nosql db or web server, > there’s > would be lots to worry about agpl / gpl/ that commercial one that converts to > apache after k years. in the case of ghc the very style and architecture just > creates a risk of a model generating old no longer correct ancient ghc / > haskell code! > > caveats: my family is basically all software ip lawyers and ive had to > navigate > quite complex ip nuances in my work over time. > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 2:34 AM andrew.lelechenko--- via ghc-devs <ghc- > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > don't these two adjacent sentences contradict one another? > > I don't see how. Is there "an immediate or visible danger"? No. Is there a > way to eliminate any potential danger around LLM usage? No, "until the > matter is actually tested by courts". Is it worth to spend five digits on > some sort of "middle way", which might alleviate but not mitigate a > potential but unspecified danger? Also no. > > Best regards, > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:ghc- > [email protected]> > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
