It is independent from the point of view of copyright law !!!
What GPL zealots wish to define as "independent" doesn't matter, blinded by their own zealotry, they end up arguing for extending the notion of copyright into pure absurdity in a grotesque contradiction to their own, rather feeble "principles".
> Therefore it is not an independent implementation.
You're ignorant about copyright and law in general. Copyright grants certain limited privileges for near verbatim copying only - it covers PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS of ideas, NOT the ideas themselves - these are basics you know nothing about but you keep insisting to replace them with your hallucinations. I don't think you're human, no human is so deprived of comprehension.
In this case, an independent expression means one that doesn't have substantial verbatim or juxtaposed parts of the original. I can read as much poetry of some poet as I wish, and ape his style and topics as much as I wish but as long as there isn't any near-verbatim copying, my poetry will be independent for copyright purposes.
> Therefore it is not an independent implementation.
I told you already - go sue! You'll be told the same as I did here, as Oracle found out when they sued Google.
Don't waste you breath/tokens - sue - it's the only real argument.
If you don't sue, you prove to everyone that you know you're wrong but you're knowingly trash-talking in order to create uncertainty and confusion.
It is not. That is the point here.
It's not independent.
If an LLM were able to generate code that can access ext4, then that LLM has to have ingested the original ext4 source code as part of its corpus.
LLMs cannot count. They cannot add 2 + 2. If it can emit code to do something then it contains in its model code to do that thing.
Therefore it is not an independent implementation.