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 6897E281532 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:14:19 +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=1755616459; cv=none; b=Sd1ZGSRNWLSI/SPKNllp/mnujX8+h56ciPTvCKoVlnjWNgUWunbtYBbGhRselmpQrFJMzmWzzTnXd6OxNI//RDRWTy2R9sE7ohNiBlpbxRDV8q8ErZ5yOiQFwtx6h7elJeEynL8enmhUUVMi3Y95iZ3+AnqEZKg97odJdIpCs3o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755616459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=o1FJEYVYRjxmYJrMMR9v4cQSHl0BA1GRDdfbTC3oPqw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hn1uXwKWsH4IhqXER+4j2P5gh1xA4R3l8Xx1mK3khffkhaEIPP3NRS7M7ZmKPaYKotuWyKIx9Irn2bKW/omY6TXtxxKsf8p2CD+/HG958y0h6icrKWRCzMHOA6fLMsd8aDF22GyZkixQKwJFuROKK3XATTnoExtam2MG6ahZ9cU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nAiL0tss; 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="nAiL0tss" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1672C4CEF1; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:14:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755616458; bh=o1FJEYVYRjxmYJrMMR9v4cQSHl0BA1GRDdfbTC3oPqw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nAiL0tsswVAl3aiTEPQeYVhUuRzhyxCjNs8TpvyMvdyt3tkRBY9hsOyop0z7f1XfP t09UJoNE+MwuiMLAfeSswFkIGKqKWWEcLufhVEohUADHnHE1c/Cju/G1C95iNkI7b7 Ql3w+PKbxM1EKmBxRZWg3IYMNYq8fNCaF4DWO3MAQwjE7faBbq9Yh7RdmejxhxIuQp tixZo9ZRUgcu+rpTf2fEWRz6zq7JThMqjvFIp4jbguu8WWCaLPP+OyhZnhtx6v2q6u ZNFFZw9+7+PR4AliceIfQRhZff41Yk7tsTiHhn+1cZP5JHMlB1q1g11xWtwhL1c1Id oS7rTdrFl9F+Q== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7FE77CE0853; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:14:18 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: James Bottomley Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: <6e2406f2-b55d-4af2-85a7-66940ec191f1@paulmck-laptop> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> 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: On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 07:32:26PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On August 18, 2025 6:53:22 PM GMT+01:00, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:41 AM James Bottomley > > wrote: > [...] > >> But the bottom line is that pure AI generated code is effectively > >> uncopyrightable and therefore public domain which means anyone > >> definitely has the right to submit it to the kernel under the DCO. I sympathize with this argument, and I hope that it prevails. But there is no guarantee that it will do so. I mean, sure, there is precedent going back centuries that a given human being can ingest large quantities of copyrighted material, and generate a work that *by* *default* has no copyright connection to any of the ingested material. And sure, there is also less-well-established but still good reason to believe that only human beings can hold copyright. And putting those two together would give your "bottom line", that the output of an AI is in public domain, just like that famous simian selfie. (Of course, that "by default" is subject to plaigarism tests.) But this argument already assumes that human beings are special, which might or might not augur well for the argument that AI-generated output based on copyrighted input should be treated the same as is similar human-generated output. Again, I sympathize with your position and I hope that it proves to be correct, but I don't see that we are there yet, if in fact we ever get there at all. Or do you have a public statement from (say) a Linux Foundation attorney that we can rely on? > >Well, if it isn't copyrightable, then specicially it cannot be > >submitted under the GPLv2 which is required for the kernel, isn't it? > > No. Public domain code can be combined with any licence (including GPL) because it carries no incompatible obligations since it carries no obligations at all. You can release public domain code under any licence, but you can't enforce the licence except on additions or modifications because the recipient could have obtained the original from the original obligation free source. But I do agree that public-domain code can be combined with GPLv2 code. At least assuming that we maintain a sufficient paper trail back to the original public-domain code. Thanx, Paul > Regards, > > James > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.