That may be what you were talking about, but you replied to me and I was not having a conversation about Linux.

I know, I asked myself.

Researchers: “Not my department”

I’m not talking about Linux.

The context of my reply is about LLM generated code and the downstream use of it in a product.

See:

LLMs themselves being products of copyright isnt the legal question at issue, it’s the downstream use of that product.

Assuming that the code is 100% LLM generated and uncopyrightable does not affect the ability to enforce license restrictions created via End User Licensing on downstream uses of that product.

A piece of software that is unable to be copyrighted due to being 100% generated can be licensed and can expect to have that license enforced via contract law.

Well, that isn’t the case now and isn’t likely to be the case anytime in the near future.

The rules are not written in stone and future Linus will have a better idea of the capabilities of future AI and can change the rules accordingly, as he has done since the beginning, in order to steer the Linux project in the right direction.

Welcome Linux newbie :)

There can be secrets in .config and so you need to be deliberate about what you commit while also ensuring that your .gitignore file is properly filled out to exclude the files which would have secrets that you don’t want to be portable. This requires a bit of work and you will, in the process, learn about how every single application that you use stores its config. You typically don’t want to just git add ., though this is a lazy/simple option and can be acceptable if you keep your files and backups secured.

This kind of configuration will also encourage you to not just hit the ‘install plasma-apps metapackage’ button and be more deliberate about the software that you install as you will need to individually address the .config files for each application in your settings repo.

I’d recommend against using Github. First, remember that “the cloud” is just “someone else’s computer”. Trusting anybody (esp. Microsoft) with critical data is a bad idea. So, sync to a location where you create your good, secure primary backups. The kind you put on a disk in a safe deposit box.

This is undoubtedly more work than simply re-configuring everything when you fresh install. The payoff is that your system’s configuration will be portable and as consistent as possible across all environments and you can safely try new configurations with the trust that you can use git to revert any changes in case you don’t like them/it breaks something.

If you want to do even more work you can maintain a separate set of dotfiles for your desktop machines and the machines where you only interact via terminal. Things like tmux config/plugins, bash/zshrc files, useful scripts and the contents of .local/bin (which is where your user’s executable scripts primarily reside) so you can ensure that your remote environments are consistent and equably capable.

For more reading/search/youtubing on the topic, these kinds of repos are commonly referred to as ‘dotfiles’ or ‘dots’. You will often find people who customize applications that share their dots (more common in the ricing community). Some projects are essentially glorified dotfiles (NVChad for nvim, for example).

Additionally, if you have more complicated setups that need to drop files into system directories or just in multiple unrelated directories, you can add GNU Stow which basically lets you store all of your dotfiles, binaries, system configurations, etc in a single directory (which you make a git repo) and you configure GNU Stow with the locations where these files need to live and it puts the files there, via symlink with a single command. Stow is an added level of complexity, likely more than most people need, but if you interact with a lot of new machines and need a quick way to configure them all in as much depth as possible… this is one of the ways you can do it.

I’d hold off on the red hat for a little while given the state of things.

Tier 1 support exists to encourage you to finish your education so you can get a job that lets you create problems for Tier 1 support.

I’m not lazy I’m, uhh, mitigating supply chain attacks.

It doesn’t have to be open source.

If someone 100% generates code to make software then the software isn’t protected by copyright.

That software could be distributed and licensed under an EULA and the fact that it isn’t protected by copyright means absolutely nothing as far as the EULA is concerned.

The copyright status and the ability to license a piece of software under contract law do not depend on one another.

The short answer is that this is a slippery slope argument.

The long answer is:

In this hypothetical future where 95% of the Linux kernel is AI generated, it stands to reason that generating an OS kernel is possible (by definition of the hypothetical).

If generating a full OS kernel is possible then people could generate a fully closed source kernel without using any of the 5% of GPL protected code in the Linux kernel.

If you allow that it’s possible for AI to create a kernel with AI generated code then it will happen regardless of the status of the Linux kernel’s copyright protections.

Well, cynically, the Supreme Court will decide and Team AI has more money to buy RVs and luxury vacations.

*Install OS for the first time ever*

cd ~/.config

git init

*commit changes, push to repo x100000*

You’re right, I misread the context (I was trying to carry on multiple simultaneous conversations).

My apologies.

because you don’t own the copyrights, so you can’t sue anyone for copyright infringement.

You can’t sue for copyright infringement.

You can, however, use content which is not able to be copyrighted and also still license (under contract law/EULAs) your product including terms prohibiting copying of the non-copyrightable information.

This was settled in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

On Zeidenberg’s copyright argument, the circuit court noted the 1991 Supreme Court precedent Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, in which it was found that the information within a telephone directory (individual phone numbers) were facts that could not be copyrighted. For Zeidenberg’s argument, the circuit court assumed that a database collecting the contents of one or more telephone directories was equally a collection of facts that could not be copyrighted. Thus, Zeidenberg’s copyright argument was valid. However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law. Since ProCD had made the investments in its business and its specific SelectPhone product, it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product, including a prohibition on copying the information therein regardless of copyright protections

You can’t copyright phone numbers, just like you can’t copyright generated code, but you can still create a license which protects your uncopyrightable content and it can be enforced via contract law.

I don’t see the problem. GPL protects all of the code that is copyrighted, i.e. 100% made by humans. Accepting a submission created with AI tools doesn’t change this. It’s not going to be a simple task for someone who has decided to violate the GPL license to only use the generated/uncopyrighted portions without using any other GPL code and thus being subject to GPL licensing terms.

These hypothetical GPL violating people will have a hard time using lines 27-38 of ./kernel/events/ring_buffer.c to do anything even if they technically can do so without releasing their code under the GPL. If they use any piece of GPL code, at all, anywhere, their entire project is required to follow the GPL. So while they could, technically, take 27-38 of ring_buffer.c and build an entire proprietary non-GPL Linux kernel… it is, in practice, not feasible even if it technically possible.

Nobody is inviting them

That is the FSF’s position, but the case law has examples of cases where it was allowed to be treated by a contract.

SFC v. Vizio, the Software Freedom Conservancy sued Vizio as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL as a contract, and the court allowed the case to proceed on that theory.

You’re confusing two separate legal issues.

Copyright is created and enforced by copyright law.

Licenses are created and enforced by contract law.

You can violate a contract without violating a copyright and you can violate a copyright without agreeing to a license. You can also license works that are not able to be protected by a copyright because they are two separate categories of law.

If I use a copyright-infringing work as a part of a new creative work, does that new work infringe copyright by default?

No, see reaction content, parody content, etc. They all undoubtedly use copyrighted work and they don’t automatically infringe on copyright by default.

And if it is judged as infringing, who is responsible for the damage done? Can I pass the damages back to the original infringing work? Or should I be held responsible for not performing due diligence?

The infringing party is the human that used the tool which generated the infringing work. Everything after that is exactly the same applicaton of copyright law just as if you were selling pictures of Mickey Mouse that you drew yourself. Disney can sue you, they can’t sue the pencil manufacturer.

The status of generated code is ‘uncopyrightable’, which can be licensed.

Copyright law determines the copyright status and contract law enforces the terms of contracts. They are two separate issues.

If someone licenses you to use their AI generated code and you violate the license agreement, it doesn’t matter that they don’t have a claim under copyright law. They have a claim under contract law due to you violating the terms of the license (which is a contract).