On 7/3/26 1:58 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Your messages got completely ignored for a month and a half. Most
developers (including myself) don't read LKML due to the high traffic,
but I'm still surprised by the complete lack of reply. Maybe CC'ing the
[email protected] mailing list would have helped ?
Given the ongoing discussion I'm kind of wondering if it has been
noticed by now, I apologize if it has and I just missed it.
Sadly, my concerning finds keep piling up, e.g. here's the WIPO, World
Intellectual Property Organization, on what they recommend for AI:
https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4713
Quote: "Consider using generative AI tools that have trained solely on
licensed, public domain, or a user's own training data. [...] Thoroughly
vet datasets when training or fine-tuning generative AI. Verify IP
ownership, license coverage for AI training, [...]"
I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong and this isn't legal advice:
But it seems to me like neither do the Linux Foundations guidelines seem
to be aware of this or adhere to this, nor does there seem to be a
single coding LLM available anywhere that fulfills these.
(Since wouldn't that require training data that is both GPL-relicensing
compatible and also doesn't require attribution? The latter I've never
seen with any coding LLM out there.)
I wonder if the Linux Foundation would find it interesting what the WIPO
says here, given how important the kernel is?
The angle of it just being a tool doesn't fully seem aware of such
concerns. At least when actual LLM code is added into the kernel.
(And at the same time, it's probably possible to make such a vetted LLM
if anybody wanted to. But that might require policies that enforce it.)
Regards,
Ellie
