DLF Response to Generative AI and D: An Open Letter

[Adam Wilson]

On Monday, 13 July 2026 at 11:29:16 UTC, Indraj Gandham wrote:
> The problem is that LLMs are not *always* transformative. As 
> pointed out in the original letter, LLMs can emit significant 
> portions of copyrighted code verbatim.

This would have to be adjudicated on a case by case basis at the 
expense of the copyright holder. Essentially, you have to prove 
each instance of non-transformative use. As copyright is specific 
to *copies* of works, there is no "blanket case" for "well this 
might happen". You have to prove that the LLM emitted a *copy* of 
your specific work, and then you have to prove that said copy 
caused you damages.

> Even if you were to implement some kind of automated check for
> unaltered content, it is a well-established legal principle that
> copying non-literal elements of software (such as program
> structure) may also constitute infringement.

This is factually incorrect. See [Oracle v. 
Google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America%2C_Inc.#Decision). As this has been decided by SCOTUS there are no further avenues of appeal and this is in fact an entirely settled issue. The only remaining option is to lobby for legislative action.

> As I pointed out in the other thread, I believe that the case 
> law (in the United States) is far from settled, and these 
> rulings should be treated as preliminary. I also think that it 
> would be unwise to rely on blanket arguments; otherwise there 
> would be nothing stopping people from developing new models 
> with the specific intent to circumvent copyright using 
> "transformation" as a shield, irrespective of how 
> transformative the LLM really was in that particular instance.
>
> This is not well-trodden ground and I think it would be prudent 
> for users of Phobos to exercise an abundance of caution beyond 
> the principles outlined in DLF's response, at least for the 
> time being.

It would be prudent for anybody with these concerns to seek 
appropriate local legal counsel. Nobody at DLF is saying 
otherwise.

I would personally state that demanding the DLF do this work for 
you is far beyond what any person has the right to expect of the 
DLF. Or any public organization for that matter. That is your 
responsibility, not the DLF's.

Please stop conjuring up vague legal-sounding hypotheticals. The 
only correct answer is "Seek appropriate local legal counsel." 
Anybody who takes legal advice from rando's off the internet 
deserves whatever happens to them. That applies to any legal 
advice that you might demand the DLF provide you, just as much as 
it applies to advice from you or I.

For all current and future hypotheticals you have conjured or may 
yet conjure up, this is the standing reply:
**Seek appropriate local legal counsel.**