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).
Most GenAI users do not submit code to the Linux kernel project.
Plagiarism and copyright violation are two different things, one is ethical and the other is legal.
Copyright has a body of case law which helps determine when a work significantly infringes on the copyrighted work of another. Plagiarism has no body of law at all, it is an ethical construct and not a legal one.
You can plagiarize something that has no copyright protection and you can infringe on copyright protection without plagiarizing. They’re not interchangeable concepts.
In your example, some institutions would not allow such a device to operate on their property but it would not be illegal to operate and the liability would be on the person and not on the oven.
To further strain the metaphor, Linus is saying that you can use (possibly) exploding ovens, because he isn’t taking a moral stance on the topic, but you are responsible for the damages if they cause any because the legal systems require that this be the case.
Copyright and License terms are two different categories of law. Copyright is an idea created and enforced by the laws of the country which has jurisdiction. Licenses are a contract between two parties and is covered by contract law.
A thing can be unable to be protected by copyright and also protected by the terms of the license that it is provided under. If a project contains copyrighted code that does not mean that you cannot be held to the terms of the license. Your use of licensed works is granted under the agreement that you follow the terms of the license. You cannot be held liable for copyright violations for using the code, but using the code in a manner that is not allowed by the license makes you liable for violation of the contract that is the license agreement.
It’s extremist to take the fact that you CAN get plagiaristic output and to conclude that all other output is somehow tainted.
You personally CAN quote copyrighted music and screenplays. If you’re an artist then you also CAN produce copyright violating works. None of these facts taint any of the other things that you produce that are not copyright or plagiarized.
In this situation, and in the current legal environment, the responsibility to not produce illegal and unlicensed code is on the human. The fact that the tool that they use has the capability to break the law does not mean that everything generated by it is tainted.
Photoshop can be used to plagiarize and violate copyright too. It would be just as absurd to declare all images created with Photoshop are somehow suspect or unusable because of the capability of the tool to violate copyright laws.
The fact that AI can, when specifically prompted, produce memorized segments of the training data has essentially no legal weight in any of the cases where it has been argued. It is a fact that is of interest to scientists who study how AI represent knowledge internally and not any kind of foundation for a legal argument against the use of AI.
Given the research that you’ve done here I’m going to assume that you’re looking for an answer and not simply taking us on a gish gallop.
Your premise, and what appears to be the primary source of confusion, is built on the idea that this is ‘stolen’ work which, from a legal point of view, is untrue. If you want to dig into why that is, look into the precedent setting case of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (2015). The TL;DR is that training AI on copyrighted works falls under the Fair Use exemptions in copyright law. i.e. It is legal, not stealing.
The case you linked from Munich shows that other country’s legal systems are interpreting AI training in the same way. Training AI isn’t about memorization and plagiarism of existing work, it’s using existing work to learn the underlying patterns.
That isn’t to say that memorization doesn’t happen, but it is more of a point of interest to AI scientists that are working on understanding how AI represents knowledge internally than a point that lands in a courtrooom.
We all memorize copyrighted data as part of our learning. You, too, can quote Disney movies or Stephen King novels if prompted in the right way. This doesn’t make any work you create automatically become plagarism, it just means that you have viewed copyrighted work as part of your learning process. In the same way, artists have the capability to create works which violate the copyright of others and they consumed copyrighted works as part of their learning process. These facts don’t taint all of their work, either morally or legally… only the output that literally violates copyright laws.
The pragmatism here is recognizing that these tools exist and that people use them. The current legal landscape is such that the output of these tools is as if they were the output of the users. If an image generator generates a copyrighted image then the rightsholder can sue the person, not the software. If a code generator generates licensed code then the tool user is responsible.
This is much like how we don’t restrict the usage of Photoshop despite the fact that it can be used to violate copyright. We, instead, put the burden on the person who operates the tool
That’s what is happening here. Linus isn’t using his position to promote/enforce/encourage LLM use, nor is he using his position to prevent/restrict/disallow any AI use at all. He is recognizing that this is a tool that exists in the world in 2026 and that his project needs to have procedures that acknowledge this while also ensuring that a human is the one responsible for their submissions.
This is the definition of pragmatism (def: action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma).
e: precedent, not president (I’m blaming the AI/autocorrect on this one)
There is a certain brand of user (who may or may not be a human) who draws the venn of ‘AI slop’ and ‘AI output’ as a circle.
They’ve taken the extremist position that AI should be uninvented and any use of AI is the worst thing that could possibly happen to any project and they’ll have an entire grab bag of misinformation-based memes to shotgun at you. Engaging with these people is about as productive as trying to convince a vaccine denier that vaccines don’t cause autism.
I’m not saying that the user you replies to believes this, but the comment they wrote is indistinguishable from the comments of such a user.
e: I’d also like to point out that these users are very much attracted to low-effort activism. This is why you see comments like mind being heavily downvoted but not many actual replies. They want to try to influence the discussion but don’t have the capability or motivation to step into the ring, so to speak, and defend their opinions.
There are 7 million people who would agree with you, if they could.
He filed a lawsuit in 2024 against his former employer, PrimeFlight, alleging unpaid wages and missed break times.
It’s an unrelated Andor reference.
Great show, if you haven’t seen it.
forcing many users to consider the unthinkable
Use a firefox clone and ublock?
(and linux, btw)
I have friends everywhere.
I’d also add:
Sometimes you just want to send someone a random file without needing to create an account for them and walking them through installing an app. You can use Filebrowser to generate a link that they can access to browse that specific file/directory without credentials. You can set these links to timeout after minutes/hours/days/never.
Useful to have a link to all of your services in a portable and shareable form. Very customizable and useful for most homelab assets.
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics.
It is kind of what they said, you’re right. I was more pointing how how it could be that they could ‘sense the vibes’ of a CFD result to determine if it is accurate or if the model decided to do something weird. Since it’s a chaotic process and also an artificial one, the starting conditions can yield results that are impossible/not based on reality.
If you look at enough of them you start to notice the kinds of things that go wrong. They would also have a pretty good idea about how their design should perform and if the simulation shows different they’d first want to troubleshoot the simulation before attempting to re-design whatever system they’re creating.
That is an insightful question.
The answer is that we actually understand chaos in a way. It isn’t unpredictable in general, it’s just hard to say how any given situation will evolve but we can understand a lot about how all systems will evolve.
I’m not good at explaining, but some content creators cover this topic pretty well. If you’re interested, here’s a video about it from Veritasium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDek6cYijxI
It’s a super exciting time for so many fields of science. Transformers are really the key discovery that’s made modern AI what it is today and we’re only barely scratching the surface of possible applications.
The future is going to be weird in ways we can’t even imagine.
Anfinsen won the Nobel in 1972 for showing that the amino acid sequence is what is responsible for the 3D structure of proteins.
Since then we’ve been able to take images of protein’s structures using xray crystallography but that is a painstaking process. The ability to accurately predict a protein’s structure from an amino acid sequence has been an unsolved problem until very recently.
It wasn’t until 2024 that Hassabis, Jumper and Baker won the Nobel for their work in predicting protein structure (using an AI called AlphaFold) and computationally designing new proteins.
The ability to create arbitrary proteins is new and will revolutionize some fields of medicine (like cancer treatment) and, to me, is a much more impressive use of AI.
LLMs are interesting but they are incredibly over-hyped as far as ‘changing the world’ goes, imo.
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.