I have looked at the diffs.

There is a claim that University of California holds copyright over large
chunks of code which are new.  These are perhaps mostly copied, but have
been changed in novel ways.  I didn't dig deep enough to decide if the
changes are trivial or complicated, I just looked at the volume.

There is a different claim that you hold copyright over large chunks of
new code.

Amongst that, there are pieces containing structures, and CRC, which you
claim you actually wrote.  You may have used AI tooling to do that.

But that leaves the situation that large chunks of new code do not have
provenance under Copyright law.  You did not write them, you said an AI did.
Then you, or the AI, put a Copyright notice at the top of those files.

That is a legal statement that this is a new work by a human creator.
But a human creator didn't do this.

Since every file in OpenBSD has been continually verified to ensure
correct Copyright, and we've even deleted code which has incorrect
Copyright, the chances of us accepting such new code with such a suspicious
Copyright situation is zero.

Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:

> Also,
> 
> I wrote my own structs reading the docs, then wrote my own CRC32c
> (different from RFC) that matched on disk data.
> 
> After that all other changes were taken from OpenBSD's ext2fs so I
> took OpenBSD ISC licence at that time and included ext2fs copyright
> notices.
> 
> Then came journalling so I don't know about RECOVER and it has not been tested.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 8:20 PM Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:
> >
> > What I meant is that when the LLM did try to read Linux source code
> > from HTTPS I stopped it and found another way.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 8:16 PM Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2026/03/17 20:04, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> > > > https://www.kmx.io/static/patches/OpenBSD-current-ext4fs.diff
> > > >
> > > > SHA256 : deeabe0d87b9c839563aa0c2dc67198bc6802ee8aedc100028f5648601b448c6
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 7:26 PM Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi tech@,
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a patch to attach ext4fs drives to OpenBSD with full ext4
> > > > > support (compatible with recent Linux).
> > > > >
> > > > > Performances are 610MB/s read/write vs 830MB/s for FFS2 on an NVMe.
> > > > >
> > > > > No journalling. Recovery at mount time not tested.
> > > > >
> > > > > All tests pass e2fstools / e2fsck without trouble. Please test and
> > > > > reply without too much flames as I'm rather new to the kernel side of
> > > > > development.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope this helps,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > >
> > > from your blog entry,
> > >
> > > "No Linux source files were ever read to build this driver. It's pure AI
> > > (ChatGPT and Claude-code) and careful code reviews and error checking
> > > and building kernel and rebooting/testing from my part."
> > >
> > > not sure what the copyright situation is regarding this, certainly those
> > > LLMs will have been trained on code including GPL...
> > >
>