if people like your stuff, you'll have a reputation because of what you made in the past, then you can offer to release your next project to the public domain if some crowdfunding goal is met.
Part of the issue is that people can feed the idea, descriptions, and pictures into the AI. Thus create knockoffs, for their crowdfund or as the basis for their similar software.
If the original person ever actually releases software, they can buy a copy and feed to the AI, to then beef up the features in the previously created similar software. The difference between the original and copycats can be few to just about none.
Unless the original creator is willing to fight it out in court, there is little they can do about the situation. Updates made in the original, can be "transferred" to the copycats. AI makes the speed and quality orders of magnitude higher.
Also as a plus every user would be trained on Adobe's workflow. Companies would just pay Adobe for stable releases... and support. Ah, yes, the LLM's... sure. But when you have humans on your side, things get explained much better, even if Adobe points to an AI too to troubleshoot. They know how to explain problems to an AI and tell the best solutions to the user back and forth.
While it is true that money could possibly be made indirectly and around the product (e.g. training, support, ads), the questions surrounding doing the equivalent of turning their IP into open-source remains. Usually, dominant companies don't like change or having to figure out new ways to obtain revenue, other than what's direct and obvious to them.
As for customization and plugins, that looks to be an AI versus IP problem too: (1) that companies would turn to Adobe or Microsoft, versus using their own AI (2) 3rd parties reverse engineering their plugins with AI.
Most likely way that it appears possible, is some type of licensing deal between the AI company and the original IP owner. Would be surprised if they do that smoothly, prior to lots of court fights, because corporate types usually don't like to share.
True, at the moment, they can't stop the AIs or who is already in possession of the code. But, they can go after anybody hosting that code (as they have done similarly before).
And the AI companies themselves are also a target, to disallow asking or performing the reverse engineering of designated IP.
The Empire (can) Strike(s) Back (unfortunately).
Yes, the counter would be to decentralize, but that doesn't stop going after the AI companies too. At the very least, a type of chilling effect can be created, where people and especially companies (with more to lose) would not want to risk using.
From the looks of it, the court cases are coming. Have no idea how things will turn out, other than this looks far from over.
Also, https://osgameclones.com
Otter Browser it's pretty much inspired from Opera 12 too.
And, for a much better example, XMMS vs WinAMP 2/3, virtually the exact same interface, with skins support.
GNU/Linux itself clones the Unix interface, API and ABI. And so did the BSD's.
Another example, Lesstif when Motif was propietary. Same API, and you could run lots of stuff written for Motif under LessTif. Now libre Motif superseded it around a decade ago.
Bash, GCC, *utils, X.org, LessTif, ZIP vs PKZIP...
Also, every libre Smalltalk IDE out there had the virtual UI as the propietary ones.
Also, FreeDOS in the 90's and DOSEmu. Same virtual interface and usage.
Violations of the EULA or copyright can result in having to fight it out in court. It's a matter of if it will be taken to court (as little guys may not have the time or lawyers) or can be that both parties have decided on some type of agreement.
- Whole Unix clones, kernel and userland
- Unix userland utility clones
- Unix compiler and linker packs. Tons of them.
- Unix UI clones 99% close to the original API
By 2000/2001 you could run most GL accelerated stuff under MESA+DRI just fine as if it were an SGI machine, even replacing propietary Motif with LessTif.
- Windows API clones, both for running and compiling software, with WineLib+WineGCC or MinGW.
- Windows clones, ReactOS from GIT can be fairly complete.
- NextStep/Cocoa clones. Currently tons of software made for OSX 10.6 (in a libre way) can be compiled with both GNUStep+Addons and with XCode.
There are trademarks and patents, in addition to copyright and contract law (any license agreements for usage of the software). Violations of any of these, can be possible reasons to be pulled into court, if that's what is decided.
Fair use is also not a blanket shield or exemption from copyright or various licenses, but rather has specific requirements and limitations, that can be what's fought over. Among these areas that are covered are how transformative something is, to what extent its a copy, and how adversely has it affected the commercial value of the product it was copied from.
These are all complex issues, that often lawyers and courts have to figure out. Have no idea as to what will be decided, but do think we are at the beginning and not the end, on what will be decided about using AI for the reverse engineering of commercial products and their IP.