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

From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de>
Date: Oct 8, 2025, 09:28 UTC
Message-ID: <aOYuvGkQglLOEu-V@kitsune.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD34TrBa-GV1wUpvhO9K+qjHpXF4gr=afY2nsXiNL_-S+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 10:37:53AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 12:20 AM brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> >

Show 16 quoted lines

> 
> > I remember the SCO situation with Linux and how it really created a lot
> > of uncertainty with Linux because SCO created FUD around Linux licensing
> > and how that led to the DCO being created.  I am aware of the fact that
> > many open source contributors are very unhappy that their code has been
> > used to train LLMs without retaining credits and copyright notices or
> > honouring the license terms[2].
> 
> 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.

Thanks

Michal