On 2026-07-23 05:14, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:45:34PM -0500, Matthias Geiger wrote:
> Consider a patch that might do something like this:
>
> ei->i_reserved_data_blocks += nr_resv;
> trace_ext4_da_reserve_space(inode, nr_resv);
> + spin_unlock(&ei->i_block_reservation_lock);
>
> return 0; /* success */
>
> To add a missing unlock on a spinlock. Suppose this was generated by
> an LLM. Do you *really* think this would actually be a copyright
> issue?
More examples:
- what if the patch just deletes lines?
- what if the implementation is entirely obvious? Ranging from adding
a missing 'return;' to obvious programs such as FizzBuzz
- int main() { printf("hello, world"); } is from a copyrighted work
by K&R, how come everyone is still using it? (fair use)
- Given some prompt: if a model were to produce the same output O
with training input T either included or excluded, to what extent
could O even be a derivative of T? And is that extent sufficient
to be counted as "derivative" under copyright law?
Best,
Christian
