From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F33BA4A for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755620173; cv=none; b=IP3LWTPqlX0+O+mzJ3PWU90yyWs5GvKArJBIQIhL6bCNhb214BYdEdWl13/XgkgvbTY99B8DHsX4sdZc9zrxlf2kzMSyWVzbtLZUpZXMr1dkupvMzMRltIx6/MIFVIIge1rHdJ+S8JS19dDUufbEoS11RktdmfhI1zpPGj7ItbQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755620173; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XHVYxH2H1yGmj68UzztRAIROBjvP5MYCR8M7zKD96JU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IoygNApy6eoEHWd4NXfvB0Fe/jKYt+A6Fa4zDiIe5HydeutXc0S+81uhs61RbCHtX3qT/tczSjZoyHdLOQtPAiFGmxX4n+wPz+D3xKZR7m+44zcXDZNNVPzNZI28RvpXiU31pjQZSLiG/UmPnlA6NDI4mg9XapmRS50vngEp3s8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=YPpCqs1W; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YPpCqs1W" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 114F8C4CEF1; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:16:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755620173; bh=XHVYxH2H1yGmj68UzztRAIROBjvP5MYCR8M7zKD96JU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YPpCqs1WmHaOdt1jNsCDgfyvxPIGhYZ13hW6y7gx6rCP6UUkgt23j8qAkaaegewQS Loegb6OPE470KVDOtRfoAf5rakepVAq/wLxnBqpdgwuHinZRE1o3TJrjhiEEEOhuLH D70Vzp4VxR/SEb3mk6xNhEMDMk168HvSq2V7eMW+kLYcXgLBqj5E9Jr+n0Pg1tydHU uYpIOXaGYjp2d7W1QXeCJ2cjQRyswiulCBPVSaZ/CjWccftkvHJ1WqANF7t/3cOzPl d0ljphAfL0Pwkssvgn4xM5yZGjFhwJvysojNIS1t5l4zh6Uyj//9dB0qp/CXsXcijh SFkNZcDVXU2hw== Received: from mchehab by mail.kernel.org with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uoP0M-00000007MU7-0Nka; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 18:16:10 +0200 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 18:16:10 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: James Bottomley Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "Paul E. McKenney" , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: <4tacplepoih3wvejopmtkdg7ujtvwmufd5teiozk5im2jikn7a@jdbou6kwindl> References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> <9020e75d-361f-457f-9def-330d8964f431@paulmck-laptop> <20250818230729.106a8c48@foz.lan> <9383F8DB-CD38-40CC-B91D-7F98E8156C04@HansenPartnership.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9383F8DB-CD38-40CC-B91D-7F98E8156C04@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: Mauro Carvalho Chehab On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 04:23:46PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On August 18, 2025 10:07:29 PM GMT+01:00, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >Em Tue, 12 Aug 2025 07:42:21 -0700 > >"Paul E. McKenney" escreveu: > [...] > > do agree that many of the lawsuits seem to be motivated by an > >> overwhelmening desire to monetize the output of AI that was induced by > >> someone else's prompts, if that is what you are getting at. It does seem > >> to me personally that after you have sliced and diced the training data, > >> fair use should apply, but last I checked, fair use was a USA-only thing. > > > >Maybe, but other Countries have similar concepts. I remember I saw an > >interpretation of the Brazilian copyright law once from a famous layer > >at property rights matter, stating that reproducing small parts of a book, > >for instance, could be ok, under certain circumstances (in a concept > >similar to US fair use). > > Yes, technically. Article 10 of the Berne convention contains a weaker concept allowing quotations without encumbrance based on a three prong test that the quote isn't extensive, doesn't rob the rights holder of substantial royalties and doesn't unreasonably prejudice the existing copyright rights. Exactly. The interpretation from such speech I mentioned is based on that. Now, exactly what is substantial is something that could be argued. There are two scenarios to consider: 1. AI using public domain or Open Source licensed code; There are so many variations of the same code patterns that AI was trained, that it sounds unlikely that the produced output would contain a substantial amount of the original code. 2. Public AI used to developt closed source If someone from VendorA trains a public AI to develop an IP protected driver for HardwareA with a very specialized unique code, and someone asks the same AI to: "write a driver for HardwareA" and get about the same code, then this would be a possible legal issue. Yet, on such case, the developer from VendorA, by using a public AI, and allowed it to be trained with the code, opened the code to be used elsewhere, eventually violating NDA. For instance, if he used Chatgpt, this license term applies: "3. License to OpenAI When you use the service, you grant OpenAI a license to use your input for the purpose of providing and improving the service—this may include model training unless you’ve opted out. This license is non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable—but it's only used as outlined in the Terms of Use and privacy policies." So, if he didn't opt-out, it granted ChatGPT and its users a patent-free sublicensable code. Ok, other LLM tools may have different terms, but if we end having to many people trying to monetize from it, the usage terms will be modified to prevent AI holders to face legal issues. Still, while I'm not a lawyer, my understanding from the (2) is that if one uses it for closed source development and allowed implicitly or explicitly the inputs to be used for training, the one that will be be accounted for, in cases envolving IP leaking, is the person who submitted IP protected property to AI. -- Thanks, Mauro