provenire 0.1.4

AI가 생성한 코드가 오픈소스 라이선스를 베꼈는지 PR에서 탐지하는 오픈소스 라이선스 게이트

Provenire

English · 한국어

Catch AI-generated code that copied open-source licenses — right in the pull request.

provenire — Latin, "to originate." It traces where your code came from.

---

The problem

Copilot, Cursor, and Claude were trained on GPL and AGPL repositories.

They reproduce that code — sometimes verbatim, without attribution. The industry now calls this "AI license laundering."

If copyleft code slips into your codebase, you may be obligated to open-source your entire product. Companies have already had to rewrite whole codebases because of this.

And yet every tool that detects it — FOSSA, Snyk, Black Duck — is commercial. Students, individuals, and small teams are left defenseless.

Provenire opens that door.

Worse: most license tools cannot even see this problem

What people call "open-source license scanning" is really three different jobs:

	Representative tools	What it inspects	Catches AI-copied code
A. Dependency scanning (SCA)	FOSSA · Snyk · ORT · pip-licenses	the declared package list (requirements.txt, …)	❌
B. License-text scanners	ScanCode · licensee · FOSSology · REUSE	the license header in each file	❌
C. Code snippet matching	Black Duck · SCANOSS · Provenire	the similarity of the code itself	⭕

When an LLM reproduces GPL code, nothing is added to your dependency list and no license header comes with it. A and B have nothing to look at. Only C can catch this.

Existing tools check what you pulled in. Provenire checks what you copied.

---

The key insight

GitHub Copilot's public code filter only blocks matches that are nearly character-identical.

Rename the variables, and it sails right through.

Provenire anonymizes identifiers before fingerprinting:

original:  def elide_filename(filename, length):  ->  def ID(ID, ID):
AI output: def truncate_path(path_str, max_len):  ->  def ID(ID, ID):
                                                       ^ the fingerprints become identical

Erase the names. Keep the structure (keywords, operators, control flow). Then fingerprint it.

→ No matter how the names change, we still catch it.

And even within group C, Provenire is currently the only tool that erases identifiers:

	Normalization	k-gram	Identifiers
MOSS (standard config)	strip comments & whitespace	5 characters	kept
SCANOSS	strip non-alphanumeric characters	30 characters	kept
Provenire	strip comments + identifiers → ID	15 tokens	erased

If names survive into the fingerprint, renaming breaks the fingerprint.

---

It actually works

Suppose an AI reproduced GPL code with only the variable names changed:

$ provenire compare ai_output.py gpl_origin.py

  mode              similarity   fingerprints
  ---------------------------------------------
  raw (baseline)        12.0%    3/25      <- Copilot-filter level: below threshold, MISSED
  tokens (default)     100.0%    24/24     <- Provenire: CAUGHT
  ---------------------------------------------

  [!] Suspected copy — 100.0% similarity (threshold 30%)

Exit code 1 → drop it straight into CI as a PR gate.

---

Verified results

Benchmarked against real GPL-3.0 code (qutebrowser/utils/utils.py).

Transformation	raw (baseline)	tokens (Provenire)
Verbatim copy	100%	100%
Comments & docstrings stripped	100%	87.5%
All variable & function names renamed	8.8% (missed)	100.0% (caught)
Renamed + stripped + reformatted	8.8% (missed)	87.5% (caught)
Unrelated code (negative control)	0%	0% (no false positive)

The raw engine stays well under the 30% threshold once names change (missed), while the token engine catches 100% with 0% false positives.

Beyond single functions

Provenire chunks code function by function, so it catches copyleft even when it is buried in a larger file — a whole GPL file pasted in, or a single GPL function renamed and mixed into your own code. On a 9-project copyleft corpus: Precision 100% · Recall 90.7% · F1 95.1% · 0 false positives (python benchmarks/evaluate.py).

Reproduce it yourself: benchmarks/ · Details: benchmarks/RESULTS.md

Where this sits in the research

Provenance tracking for LLM-generated code is an active research area. Recent work (Gurioli et al., Efficient and Scalable Provenance Tracking for LLM-Generated Code Snippets, 2026) solves winnowing's scalability problem — a vector-search first stage takes a 10M-snippet corpus from linear- to logarithmic-time retrieval. That work, however, keeps identifiers during normalization, and models renaming as "a 20% probability of replacing words longer than three characters that appear more than twice" — so most identifiers survive verbatim.

Provenire pushes on an orthogonal axis: not scale, but robustness to transformation — detection when every identifier has been changed. Notably, the semantic chunking that paper lists as future work ("semantically meaningful units, such as function bodies … via AST analysis") is already implemented here (index/chunker.py). Conversely, the Type-3 clones it leaves open (inserted, deleted, or reordered statements) remain open for us too — see the roadmap.

---

Install

pip install provenire

Usage

provenire compare <suspect> <origin>   # similarity between two files
provenire fingerprint <file>           # preview the fingerprint
provenire scan <path>                  # scan files — bundled copyleft index, works out of the box
provenire scan --diff <ref>            # scan only the code added since <ref> (PR gate)
provenire scan <path> --index <db>     # ...or point at your own fingerprint DB

from provenire import compare

m = compare(ai_generated_code, gpl_source)
if m.is_suspicious:
    print(f"Suspected copy: {m.similarity:.1%}")

# other languages
compare(java_a, java_b, lang="java")

---

GitHub Action

Gate every pull request automatically. Provenire scans only the code added in the PR (scan --diff), comments on the PR when a copyleft match is found, and can fail the check.

# .github/workflows/provenire.yml
name: Provenire
on: pull_request
permissions:
  contents: read
  pull-requests: write        # required to comment on the PR
jobs:
  license-gate:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          fetch-depth: 0       # required — the base commit must exist for the diff
      - uses: 4thIS/opensource_contest_provenire/.github/action@v0.1
        with:
          fail-on: true        # fail the check on a match (false = comment only)

A match is reported as file:start-end plus the name of your enclosing function, so you know exactly which lines to look at:

⚠️ Provenire — copyleft-similar code found

  98.2%  src/utils.py:41-70  (sanitize_path)
     ↳ qutebrowser/utils.py :: sanitize_filename  [GPL-3.0-or-later]

Line numbers refer to the original file even under --diff, which only scans added lines.

The copyleft fingerprint index ships inside the package, so it works with no extra setup. Point at your own DB with index: path/to/your.db if you build one.

Notes:

• fetch-depth: 0 is required. The default shallow checkout has no base commit, so --diff cannot compute the added lines.
• Fork PRs run with a read-only token, so the comment step is skipped; the failing check still signals the problem.
• Start with fail-on: false. Let it comment for a week before it blocks anyone — that is how we found (and fixed) a false-positive class in our own repo.

---

Roadmap

• Winnowing fingerprint engine
• Token normalization (identifier anonymization) — the core moat
• Similarity judgment (containment)
• CLI (compare / fingerprint)
• Language packs — Python · Java · JavaScript · TypeScript
• Bundled copyleft index — ships with the package; scan works out of the box
• provenire scan — file scan (function-level chunking) & --diff PR gate
• GitHub Action — PR comment + failing check (usage)
• Scale the index (LSH / MinHash) for larger corpora
• LLM second-pass judgment (idiom vs. structural reproduction)
• More languages (Go, C++, …) & function-level chunking beyond Python
• pre-commit hook

---

How it works

PR diff (added lines)
   |
   |-- 1. Normalize     strip comments -> tokenize -> anonymize identifiers to ID
   |-- 2. Fingerprint   k-gram hashes -> sliding-window minimum (winnowing)
   |-- 3. Index lookup  query the copyleft fingerprint database
   |-- 4. Judge         containment = |shared fingerprints| / |suspect fingerprints|
   `-- 5. Report        origin link · license · risk level

Algorithm: Schleimer, Wilkerson & Aiken, "Winnowing: Local Algorithms for Document Fingerprinting" (SIGMOD 2003) — the basis of MOSS.

---

Adding a language

Language packs are one file. You never touch the core.

# src/provenire/languages/java.py
from pygments.token import Token
from .base import LanguageSpec

SPEC = LanguageSpec(
    name="java",
    lexer="java",
    extensions=(".java",),
    keep=(Token.Keyword, Token.Keyword.Type),   # types are structure
)

Register it in languages/__init__.py, add a test, done. See CONTRIBUTING.md — good first issue welcome.

---

Contributing

The most valuable contributions right now:

1. New language packs (Java, Go, Rust, JS/TS) — good first issue
2. False-positive reports — boilerplate that gets wrongly flagged
3. Benchmark cases — especially code an LLM actually regenerated

See CONTRIBUTING.md.

License

Apache-2.0 — patent grant included. Use it freely; keep the attribution.

Provenire is not legal advice. It flags suspicious regions. It does not render a verdict.

---

_{Built for the 2026 Open Source Developer Contest (Korea) · Team 코드감식반 (Lee Woojin · Kim Minsu)}