9 ms·

This does nothing to shield Linux from responsibility for infringing code. This is essentially like a retail store saying the supplier is responsible for elimi

This does nothing to shield Linux from responsibility for infringing code. This is essentially like a retail store saying the supplier is responsible for eliminating all traces of THC from their hemp when they know that isn’t a reasonable request to make. It’s a foreseeable consequence. You don’t get to grant yourself immunity from liability like this.

SirHumphrey 6mo ago
Quite a lot of companies use and release AI written code, are they all liable?
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  1. Almost definitely if discovered 2. Infringement in closed source code isn’t as likely to be discovered 3. OpenAI and Anthropic enterprise agreements agree to indemnify (pay for damages essentially) companies for copyright issues.
  - theshrike79 6mo ago
    What would be "discovered" exactly? You can't patent a basic CRUD application. There has to be an analogy to music or something here - except that code is even less copyrightable than melodies. Yes, there might be some specific algorithms that are patented, but the average programmer won't be implementing any of those from scratch, they'll use libraries anyway.
    - sarchertech 6mo ago
      I’m not talking patents. Code is 100% copyrightable. Code being copyrightable is the entire basis for open source licenses.
      - theshrike79 6mo ago
        s/patent/copyright/ in my comment then. What part of a bog-standard HTTP API can be copyrighted? Parsing the POST request or processing it or shoving it to storage? I'm genuinely confused here and not just being an ass. There are unique algorithms for things like media compression etc, I understand copyrighting those. But for the vast majority of software, is there any realistic threat of hitting any copyrighted code that's so unique it has been copyrighted and can be determined as such? There are only so many ways you can do a specific common thing. I kinda think of it like music, without ever hearing a specific song you might hit the same chord progressions by accident because in reality there are only so many combinations you can make with notes that sound good.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Unlike patents, independent creation is a valid defense to copyright infringement. Copyright is the literal expression of the idea. The identifier names, how the functions are broken up, which libraries are used etc… Given more than a dozen lines or so, 2 people aren’t going to write the exact same code to solve the same problem. It might be equivalent code, but it’s not going to be the exact same. def copyright_warning(times) do for _ <- 1..times do IO.puts("hey man this code is copyrighted. Don't copy it pretty please") end end That code is copyright protected. I don’t have to do anything. I automatically own the copyright once I create it. If you copy that you are infringing. You could do something similar if you wanted. But if you copy that directly, you are infringing on my copyright.
        theshrike79 6mo ago
        But isn't it literally impossible to determine whether I copied those 5 lines or wrote them myself? Especially in languages like Go where there's an Official Formatter that makes all code look identical as much as possible? There are a multitude of reasons why I'm not a lawyer and vague crap like this is a big part :D
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        It’s literally impossible to prove anything outside of a formal system. Courts would look at the preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial. Did you have access to my code? Is the copy long enough that it’s statistically very unlikely that could have came up with it exactly on your own? They’ll look at things like did you copy misspellings in variable names. Did you copy the missing period at the end of the output string etc…
- nitwit005 6mo ago
  Yep, and honestly it's going to come up with things other than lawsuits. I've worked at a company that was asked as part of a merger to scan for code copied from open source. That ended up being a major issue for the merger. People had copied various C headers around in odd places, and indeed stolen an odd bit of telnet code. We had to go clean it up.
  - LtWorf 6mo ago
    Headers are normally fine. GPL license recognises that you might need them to read binary files.
testing22321 6mo ago
> This does nothing to shield Linux from responsibility for infringing code. It’s no worse than non-AI assisted code. I could easily copy-paste proprietary code, sign my name that it’s not and that it complies with the GPL and submit it. At the end of the day, it just comes down to a lying human.
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  That’s the difference. In practice a human has to commit fraud to do this. But a human just using an LLM to generate code will do it accidentally. The difference is that regurgitation of training text is a documented failure mode of LLMs. And there’s no way for the human using it to be aware it’s happening.
  - testing22321 6mo ago
    You can not accidentally sign your name saying “this code is GPL compliant” If you can’t be sure, don’t sign.
    - sarchertech 6mo ago
      I’m not gonna. A lot of other people now will.
      - testing22321 6mo ago
        Well yes, people break the law and expose themselves to liability everyday. Nothing new there.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Are far as I know there’s one incidence of a company asserting copyright infringement against the Linux kernel, even if I’ve missed a few, it doesn’t have frequently. That will change with AI generated code, and it exposes everyone commercial entity that distributes Linux in any form to liability.
zarzavat 6mo ago
Shield from what exactly? The Linux kernel is not a legal entity. It's a collection of contributions from various contributors. There is the Linux Foundation but they do not own Linux. If Linux were to contain 3rd party copyrighted code the legal entity at risk of being sued would be... Linux users, which given how widely deployed Linux is is basically everyone on Earth, and all large companies. Linux development is funded by large companies with big legal departments. It's safe to say that nobody is going to be picking this legal fight any time soon.
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  The Linux DCO system was designed to shield Linus and the Linux foundation from copyright and patent infringement liability, so they were certainly worried that it was a possibility. However, there is no legal precedent that says that because contributors sign a DCO and retain copyright, the Linux Foundation is not liable. The entire concept is unproven. Large company legal departments aren’t a shield against this kind of thing. Patent trolls routinely go after huge companies and smaller companies routinely sue much larger ones over copyright infringement.
lukeify 6mo ago
An open-source project receiving open-source contributions from (often anonymous) volunteers is not even close to analogous to a storefront selling products with a consumer guarantee they are backing on the basis of their supply chain.
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  Do you think that Goodwill should be able to offload all liability for everything they sell at their thrift shops to their often anonymous donors? Linus makes $1.5 million per year from the Linux foundation. And the foundation itself pulls in $300 million a year in revenue. They are directly benefiting from contributors and if they cause harm through their actions there’s a good chance they’ll be held liable.
  - lukeify 6mo ago
    > Do you think that Goodwill should be able to offload all liability for everything they sell at their thrift shops to their often anonymous donors? I don't even think this is an appropriate analogy worth answering. Goodwill are selling products to consumers in a direct exchange of money-for-goods. No one is buying Linux.
    - sarchertech 6mo ago
      Ok so if goodwill gives products away they should be able to absolve themselves of all liability related to those products? And any company selling a device or software the includes the Linux code should be liable then. And they are according to the law btw. Along with anyone distributing the software which includes the owner of the Linux repositories.

SirHumphrey 6mo ago

Quite a lot of companies use and release AI written code, are they all liable?

sarchertech 6mo ago
1. Almost definitely if discovered 2. Infringement in closed source code isn’t as likely to be discovered 3. OpenAI and Anthropic enterprise agreements agree to indemnify (pay for damages essentially) companies for copyright issues.
- theshrike79 6mo ago
  What would be "discovered" exactly? You can't patent a basic CRUD application. There has to be an analogy to music or something here - except that code is even less copyrightable than melodies. Yes, there might be some specific algorithms that are patented, but the average programmer won't be implementing any of those from scratch, they'll use libraries anyway.
  - sarchertech 6mo ago
    I’m not talking patents. Code is 100% copyrightable. Code being copyrightable is the entire basis for open source licenses.
    - theshrike79 6mo ago
      s/patent/copyright/ in my comment then. What part of a bog-standard HTTP API can be copyrighted? Parsing the POST request or processing it or shoving it to storage? I'm genuinely confused here and not just being an ass. There are unique algorithms for things like media compression etc, I understand copyrighting those. But for the vast majority of software, is there any realistic threat of hitting any copyrighted code that's so unique it has been copyrighted and can be determined as such? There are only so many ways you can do a specific common thing. I kinda think of it like music, without ever hearing a specific song you might hit the same chord progressions by accident because in reality there are only so many combinations you can make with notes that sound good.
      - sarchertech 6mo ago
        Unlike patents, independent creation is a valid defense to copyright infringement. Copyright is the literal expression of the idea. The identifier names, how the functions are broken up, which libraries are used etc… Given more than a dozen lines or so, 2 people aren’t going to write the exact same code to solve the same problem. It might be equivalent code, but it’s not going to be the exact same. def copyright_warning(times) do for _ <- 1..times do IO.puts("hey man this code is copyrighted. Don't copy it pretty please") end end That code is copyright protected. I don’t have to do anything. I automatically own the copyright once I create it. If you copy that you are infringing. You could do something similar if you wanted. But if you copy that directly, you are infringing on my copyright.
        theshrike79 6mo ago
        But isn't it literally impossible to determine whether I copied those 5 lines or wrote them myself? Especially in languages like Go where there's an Official Formatter that makes all code look identical as much as possible? There are a multitude of reasons why I'm not a lawyer and vague crap like this is a big part :D
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        It’s literally impossible to prove anything outside of a formal system. Courts would look at the preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial. Did you have access to my code? Is the copy long enough that it’s statistically very unlikely that could have came up with it exactly on your own? They’ll look at things like did you copy misspellings in variable names. Did you copy the missing period at the end of the output string etc…
nitwit005 6mo ago
Yep, and honestly it's going to come up with things other than lawsuits. I've worked at a company that was asked as part of a merger to scan for code copied from open source. That ended up being a major issue for the merger. People had copied various C headers around in odd places, and indeed stolen an odd bit of telnet code. We had to go clean it up.
- LtWorf 6mo ago
  Headers are normally fine. GPL license recognises that you might need them to read binary files.

testing22321 6mo ago

> This does nothing to shield Linux from responsibility for infringing code. It’s no worse than non-AI assisted code. I could easily copy-paste proprietary code, sign my name that it’s not and that it complies with the GPL and submit it. At the end of the day, it just comes down to a lying human.

sarchertech 6mo ago
That’s the difference. In practice a human has to commit fraud to do this. But a human just using an LLM to generate code will do it accidentally. The difference is that regurgitation of training text is a documented failure mode of LLMs. And there’s no way for the human using it to be aware it’s happening.
- testing22321 6mo ago
  You can not accidentally sign your name saying “this code is GPL compliant” If you can’t be sure, don’t sign.
  - sarchertech 6mo ago
    I’m not gonna. A lot of other people now will.
    - testing22321 6mo ago
      Well yes, people break the law and expose themselves to liability everyday. Nothing new there.
      - sarchertech 6mo ago
        Are far as I know there’s one incidence of a company asserting copyright infringement against the Linux kernel, even if I’ve missed a few, it doesn’t have frequently. That will change with AI generated code, and it exposes everyone commercial entity that distributes Linux in any form to liability.

zarzavat 6mo ago

Shield from what exactly? The Linux kernel is not a legal entity. It's a collection of contributions from various contributors. There is the Linux Foundation but they do not own Linux. If Linux were to contain 3rd party copyrighted code the legal entity at risk of being sued would be... Linux users, which given how widely deployed Linux is is basically everyone on Earth, and all large companies. Linux development is funded by large companies with big legal departments. It's safe to say that nobody is going to be picking this legal fight any time soon.

sarchertech 6mo ago
The Linux DCO system was designed to shield Linus and the Linux foundation from copyright and patent infringement liability, so they were certainly worried that it was a possibility. However, there is no legal precedent that says that because contributors sign a DCO and retain copyright, the Linux Foundation is not liable. The entire concept is unproven. Large company legal departments aren’t a shield against this kind of thing. Patent trolls routinely go after huge companies and smaller companies routinely sue much larger ones over copyright infringement.

lukeify 6mo ago

An open-source project receiving open-source contributions from (often anonymous) volunteers is not even close to analogous to a storefront selling products with a consumer guarantee they are backing on the basis of their supply chain.

sarchertech 6mo ago
Do you think that Goodwill should be able to offload all liability for everything they sell at their thrift shops to their often anonymous donors? Linus makes $1.5 million per year from the Linux foundation. And the foundation itself pulls in $300 million a year in revenue. They are directly benefiting from contributors and if they cause harm through their actions there’s a good chance they’ll be held liable.
- lukeify 6mo ago
  > Do you think that Goodwill should be able to offload all liability for everything they sell at their thrift shops to their often anonymous donors? I don't even think this is an appropriate analogy worth answering. Goodwill are selling products to consumers in a direct exchange of money-for-goods. No one is buying Linux.
  - sarchertech 6mo ago
    Ok so if goodwill gives products away they should be able to absolve themselves of all liability related to those products? And any company selling a device or software the includes the Linux code should be liable then. And they are according to the law btw. Along with anyone distributing the software which includes the owner of the Linux repositories.