In reply to a developer on one of the Linux kernel mailing lists, Linux creator Linus Torvalds firmly put a foot down to push back against anti-AI comments.
All it takes is one person using an LLM tainted with proprietary code which then just gives them that code line for line to undo decades of courtroom defense.
The GPL license no longer covers the kernel in legal terms.
The uncopyrightability of AI-written code only applies to the actual strings of code generated by an AI, not to the entire project.
A person could ignore the GPL if they only copied the AI-written portions. But, how could they know for sure which lines were AI generated and which were not? A wrong choice would leave them civilly liable for copyright violation and all they stand to gain would be tiny portions of the Linux kernel code which are worthless by themselves.
There’s no reason to steal the AI generated portions and risk a lawsuit, when you can just generate your own code.
Whoever combines LLM generated code with GPL licensed code is required to license the result under the GPL. Can they do that if the LLM code isn’t copyrightable?
The GPL license is a way to take things that can be copyrighted and grant those rights to others with limitations (the limitations being the terms of the license).
However, the AI generated portions of the code are not copyrightable and so they’re considered public domain and remain so no matter what. Once something is public domain it is always public domain, no matter where it is used.
In practice, if someone wrote a function by hand and then the AI added some error handling code, then that person has a copyright to the lines that they wrote while the lines that the AI wrote are public domain. The entire function can still be licensed under the GPL but the copyright owner would not be able to pursue you for violation of the license if you used the error handling code in another non-GPL work as that portion is public domain.
From a legal standpoint, since the code isn’t annotated as to which parts were human written (protected by copyright/GPL) and which parts were not (and fall under public domain), it would be unwise to attempt to violate the GPL license terms by taking arbitrary parts of the code and releasing them without a GPL license.
what is a proprietary line of code? how do you look at a for loop or uf statement and say “i own that”. i can tell you that in all the huge applications i have worked on in the last 27 years, there isnt special proprietary code. there is proprietary data but not code.
the only time you really have proprietary codeis specialized code talking to a specialized device. so maybe a closed source driver.
All it takes is one person using an LLM tainted with proprietary code which then just gives them that code line for line to undo decades of courtroom defense.
Not only that, but AI output can’t be licensed/copyrighted. The GPL license no longer covers the kernel in legal terms.
The uncopyrightability of AI-written code only applies to the actual strings of code generated by an AI, not to the entire project.
A person could ignore the GPL if they only copied the AI-written portions. But, how could they know for sure which lines were AI generated and which were not? A wrong choice would leave them civilly liable for copyright violation and all they stand to gain would be tiny portions of the Linux kernel code which are worthless by themselves.
There’s no reason to steal the AI generated portions and risk a lawsuit, when you can just generate your own code.
Whoever combines LLM generated code with GPL licensed code is required to license the result under the GPL. Can they do that if the LLM code isn’t copyrightable?
Essentially yes.
The GPL license is a way to take things that can be copyrighted and grant those rights to others with limitations (the limitations being the terms of the license).
However, the AI generated portions of the code are not copyrightable and so they’re considered public domain and remain so no matter what. Once something is public domain it is always public domain, no matter where it is used.
In practice, if someone wrote a function by hand and then the AI added some error handling code, then that person has a copyright to the lines that they wrote while the lines that the AI wrote are public domain. The entire function can still be licensed under the GPL but the copyright owner would not be able to pursue you for violation of the license if you used the error handling code in another non-GPL work as that portion is public domain.
From a legal standpoint, since the code isn’t annotated as to which parts were human written (protected by copyright/GPL) and which parts were not (and fall under public domain), it would be unwise to attempt to violate the GPL license terms by taking arbitrary parts of the code and releasing them without a GPL license.
The Free Software Foundation, the creators of the GNU GPL, has an FAQ that covers a lot of the details: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
this is FUD and not true. projects are licensed not lines of code.
But if there are proprietary lines of code that end up in a project with an open license, you get a violation. 🤷♂️
what is a proprietary line of code? how do you look at a for loop or uf statement and say “i own that”. i can tell you that in all the huge applications i have worked on in the last 27 years, there isnt special proprietary code. there is proprietary data but not code.
the only time you really have proprietary codeis specialized code talking to a specialized device. so maybe a closed source driver.
I have worked at two companies back-to-back for a total of about 8 years, so significantly less time, that both definitely had proprietary code.
It is code that does things that nobody else is doing, or able to do, and patented, I believe(?).
But nice anecdote. 👍
Yah, before AI there’s never been a chance of proprietary code entering the Linux ecosystem and they have no defences against it at all.