That all makes sense to me, all I meant is that you are answering the relicense question literally, which I don't think actually matters. The situation we are pondering is that someone wants to free a project from it's original license.

They are claiming they did a magic trick with an LLM and now the project is MIT licensed. And you are saying that it's not, it's public domain. But the distinction is immaterial to the person's goal. Whether the author is right or you are right, the project is no longer under its original license, and whether that is something that can happen is the actual question here, regardless if the resulting output can be licensed or not.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

They are claiming they did a magic trick with an LLM and now the project is MIT licensed. And you are saying that it’s not, it’s public domain.

That's absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the rewrite of chardet infringes on the copyright of the original work. That is neither MIT licensed nor public domain. It's illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted work.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Then what did you mean when you said:

the output will always be in the public domain

It seems to me like a pretty clear statement.

I’m saying that the rewrite of chardet infringes on the copyright of the original work. That is neither MIT licensed nor public domain. It’s illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted work.

That I never disputed, I'm not interested about chardet or whatever happened here, I'm interested about your comment that LLM output is always public domain, and if so, whether it could be used to achieve the goal of reimplementing a library so that it achieves the same purpose but isn't bound by the original license, if you do it without infringing on the copyright of the original work.