2026-04-12 16:37 UTC
Replies (6)
-
@marlowe221@lemmy.world 2026-04-12 17:36
Yeah, that’s also my question. Partially because I am a former-lawyer-turned-software-developer… but, yeah. How are the kernel maintainers supposed to evaluate whether a particular PR contains non-GPL code? Granted, this was potentially an issue before LLMs too, but nowhere near the scale it will be now. (In the interests of full disclosure, my legal career had nothing to do with IP law or software licensing - I did public interest law).
-
@TheOctonaut@piefed.zip 2026-04-13 03:42
> the LLM output could have come from non-GPL sources Fundamentally not how LLMs work, it's not a database of code snippets.
-
@anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-12 17:34
Yup. I would also just point out that this doesnt change the legal exposure to the Linux kernel to infringing submissions from before the advent of LLMs.
-
@scarabic@lemmy.world 2026-04-14 00:28
That’s probably why they say “a human is responsible” not “a human must validate it.” I certainly agree that validation is not always possible. And this problem will get worse in time.
-
@lechekaflan@lemmy.world 2026-04-13 09:12
> The title of the article is extraordinary wrong that makes it click bait. It's the pain in the ass with some of those fucking tech/video/showbiz news outlets and then rules in some fora where you cannot make "editorialized" post titles, even though it's so tempting to correct the awful titling.
-
@Fmstrat@lemmy.world 2026-04-13 10:58
> Because even using AI as a tool and having a human review it still means the code the LLM output could have come from non GPL sources. I get why they are passing this by though, since you don't know the provenance of that Stack Overflow snippet, either.