Re: LLM based rewrites

On March 9, 2026 9:55:36 AM PDT, "H=2E Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor=2Ecom> wrote=
:
>On March 9, 2026 9:33:12 AM PDT, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn=2Enet> wrote=
:
>>Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis=2Eorg> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Mar 2026 08:31:03 -0700
>>> "H=2E Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor=2Ecom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is somewhat hard to see how that would constitute a "clean-room"
>>>> rewrite=2E A clean-room rewrite entails two teams, one (the "clean" r=
oom)
>>>> which must be certified to have never seen the code in question, and =
all
>>>> communications between the two teams must be auditable=2E
>>>
>>> I was thinking the same=2E
>>
>>The argumentation that is being made (which I am trying to reproduce but
>>am *not* advocating) is that "a clean-room rewrite is just one means to
>>an end" and that, in this specific case, the code being rewritten was
>>explicitly excluded from the context given to the bot (though that turns
>>out not to entirely be the case)=2E  In theory, it only had the desired
>>API and a set of tests available to it=2E
>>
>>The fact that every version of chardet was surely in its training data
>>is not deemed to be relevant=2E
>>
>>jon
>>
>
>That's a question for the lawyers and the courts, really=2E But it is mos=
t definitely *not* clean room=2E That being said, clean room is certainly n=
ot the only way to rewrite software that can pass legal muster, but it is t=
he gold standard
In the end, though, it comes down to the plain fact that LLMs have pushed =
copyright law into undefined territory=2E As Uber showed, sometimes the str=
ategy of doing something that is at the very best questionable legally can =
be successful if you can get spread broadly enough quickly enough so that t=
he political process overtakes the legal one=2E