<div><div dir="auto">On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 6:57\u202fPM Luis Villa <<a href="mailto:luis@lu.is" target="_blank">luis@lu.is</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"><span>With the usual caveat that I\u2019m just dipping my toe in this thread and reading every fifth post at best:</span></div></div><div><div dir="auto"><span><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span>On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 6:08\u202fPM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p dir="auto">What I find distinguishable about a termination of the copyright
license versus the patent license is that copyright infringement
doesn't happen by accident. There is no copyright infringement
without deliberate, knowing copying. Someone may have made the
judgment call that the copying is lawful, and therefore not an
infringement, but it was nevertheless intentional conduct.<br></p></div></blockquote></div><div><div dir="auto">This conflates two different things: copying is always intentional, but not all copying is copyright infringement. There are very clear good-faith arguments (under both the EU\u2019s TDM exception and US fair use) that the sorts of copying we\u2019re mostly talking about here are not copyright infringement.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Now, maybe you don\u2019t agree with those arguments (I move back and forth myself a lot of the time!) but intentional copying doesn\u2019t mean intentional infringement.</div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir="auto">I\u2019d add that many of us here[1] strongly supported intentional copying that was found to be fair use in Google-Oracle, even arguing in amici that deliberate copying was a useful and important part of the software development ecosystem. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(Less remembered detail of that case: Oracle\u2019s original infringement claims included an allegation that Google had copied code that was in fact PD, and that both Sun and Apache/Android had copied from the same upstream academic. \u201cWhat if that 3d party PD code had this clause\u201d is a thought exeriment that probably cuts both ways, since (1) Sun almost certainly wouldn\u2019t have included the code if it had that clause; but (2) if they had the dynamic of the litigation would have been very different and possibly much shorter.)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I\u2019m _not_ saying LLM training[2] is the same thing as an API reimplementation; the nature of the copying and the industry power analyses are very different. Just pointing out that copying sometimes has very different valence in FOSS (which is why CC2+, GPL3, and MPL2 all explicitly affirm fair use) and it\u2019s worth remembering that before we make broad statements about copying.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">[1] Hi Jim, been too long ;) <br></div><div dir="auto">[2] or RAG, which is also worth considering separately</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p dir="auto"></p></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>