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.
There seems to be legal discussions about that. It’s not quite as simple as you say:
However, there may be cases in which a different assessment is justified, namely when users use and operate the LLM as a tool that merely implements their personal creative intent. This could be compared somewhat more vividly to using a paintbrush. If the brush merely rolls over the paper, for example because it is dropped, no copyright-protected work is created, even if paint remains on the paper. However, if a painter deliberately swings the brush in a certain way, a protected painting can be created. If AI is used in a comparable way a copyright-protected work can indeed be created.
Yeah any decision would be on a case by case basis, which is normally something you’d want to avoid.
I’ve seen a couple of Linux devs talk about how they just give a prompt to claude and walk away leaving it alone to spit out the code, none of which can be licensed as GPL. But good luck working out what specific lines of what specific patches of theirs used an LLM vs. were re-written or such.
Not only that, but AI output can’t be licensed/copyrighted. The GPL license no longer covers the kernel in legal terms.
There seems to be legal discussions about that. It’s not quite as simple as you say:
https://kpmg-law.de/en/ai-and-copyright-what-is-permitted-when-using-llms/
Yeah any decision would be on a case by case basis, which is normally something you’d want to avoid.
I’ve seen a couple of Linux devs talk about how they just give a prompt to claude and walk away leaving it alone to spit out the code, none of which can be licensed as GPL. But good luck working out what specific lines of what specific patches of theirs used an LLM vs. were re-written or such.
While I share Linus opinion on LLMs, I think doing this shit is extremely stupid and lazy.