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 7C1E326E71E for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 21:44:01 +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=1755726241; cv=none; b=I7XG3wnXq+lN2Bw6bkiYvekMgCL9jmSRkQKK2mSClBmGx34MwrMcbOowEYpGJVKsrG+zwZsYgAwaTL7R+9Oxu7XR4JmZ1k/Xw3tGE1HsWev9GCV0LnPZFO8oJ+sEAooDX1WiCn4D0HxjSLruSOUQtqW9VBJ4cueRuyCUaSekwiw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755726241; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LPvMBz8kqpwINwJJ2RjRUfTQ0URq6VFjExpXKlKoIo8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tOZatnp32B29W6wcBstMJ4syq8UltojwqNfTbJ86FTwg5BxUI8fn/bRSk7t0CirUdMoIYp4yoSyDsgz0p8y2vftRHnB80NHk7bd1nbvknKnOSzK4RJE20eaWJPMCqYP5WgKfknHz8QGQuDj3dXtWROVWI0w1ND7nFIfmU/2/o88= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EiV1VlEM; 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="EiV1VlEM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F193AC4CEE7; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 21:44:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755726241; bh=LPvMBz8kqpwINwJJ2RjRUfTQ0URq6VFjExpXKlKoIo8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EiV1VlEMlQkURPny3SOg/eBeCF2IF42FgpfvQeEuhyJ6YXpH+p+YNt1p5Xd9U0IyF Dt1IkkOYrQFWR6seXiRJIPyteNef3BZx1G95CIrPAKil3aPvA0A+Xo/r/SoY3T30uq h9P7wsWi7y39EYRsOozFQT2v3zhKfa0Ko3+e8cILLaHqPUTlfxcVkGxZHdxxEfLFQx lch+Z8/X3tVgdpLrpqDe4NBbfn3zYt09SZB8vLKkeXy0J2Lx2xbVP6yIqkbdBI7wFR ZPqYegEvTFqlFRkxHmDCZq3GD4VXHonGOWLW+4Hz2AA2fEldbdsYQR5Z57rqBsYKOV lJpxSpYqOdVXw== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9C7A6CE09F9; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:44:00 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: James Bottomley , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org 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> <4tacplepoih3wvejopmtkdg7ujtvwmufd5teiozk5im2jikn7a@jdbou6kwindl> 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: <4tacplepoih3wvejopmtkdg7ujtvwmufd5teiozk5im2jikn7a@jdbou6kwindl> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 06:16:10PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > 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. Many of the AI players scrape the web, and might well pull in training data from web pages having a restrictive copyright. The AI's output might then be influenced by that restricted training data. Although we might desperately want this not to be a problem for AI-based submissions to the Linux kernel, what we want and what the various legal systems actually give us are not guaranteed to have much relation to each other. Thanx, Paul