Re: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 8, 2025, 09:35 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD3cg1W+LEgDrs77prdFvKHhUBsT1d0P7zpYswBfMXpWVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aOYuvGkQglLOEu-V@kitsune.suse.cz>

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 11:28 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > I don't think it's very relevant for your position on this. On the
> > contrary, if LLMs have been trained mostly with open source code, then
> > if they produce copyrighted output, that output is more likely to be
> > compatible with the GPL. It has even been suggested (and discussed in
> > this thread) that some AIs should be trained only with open source
> > material (for example MIT licensed material?) so that we could stop
> > worrying about including it. If that happens, there would be no reason
> > to outright ban AI generated content, right?
>
> even MIT license requires attribution. As most current day LLMs fail to
> provide that their output is legally dubious even when trained on fairly
> permissively licensed code.

Fair enough, but then if an AI is ever trained with the particular purpose of producing code that can be included into MIT compatible code bases, then hopefully people training it will make sure it can help with properly attributing that code.