But maybe even using emacs could be GPL-corrupted and lead to
atrocious macros leading to GPL licensed code in all my files !!!!

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:51 AM Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:
>
> I understand the code the AI provided could be stolen and you don't
> want to play that game, ok.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:47 AM Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:
> >
> > And I won't retract my copyright unless forced to. I can remove the
> > Regents of california whom I don't know at all and will think about
> > it.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:45 AM Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did check everything and it did look like ext2fs code with minor
> > > modifications that I fully understand to support ext4 extents and
> > > checksums it's not that big of a deal : ext4 is just ext2 with 64 bit,
> > > different checksums and extents tree walking. Now I did use tooling
> > > but that tooling is not GPL licensed at all, I will stand by this
> > > position.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:40 AM Theo de Raadt <deraadt@openbsd.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So the story changes... now you say you wrote it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thomas de Grivel <thodg@kmx.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 6:17 PM Theo de Raadt <deraadt@openbsd.org> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well most code was taken from ext2fs
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is a different claim that you hold copyright over large chunks of
> > > > > > new code.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did write it and read it with some tooling of my choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Amongst that, there are pieces containing structures, and CRC, which you
> > > > > > claim you actually wrote.  You may have used AI tooling to do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's true.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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's true for crc32c which is ChatGPT code and debug and most short
> > > > > functions except VOP_*
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is a legal statement that this is a new work by a human creator.
> > > > > > But a human creator didn't do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well I take upon myself that this code will be well copied if you put
> > > > > my name on it. Isn't that the goal of the copy right ?
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well in the past copyright situations have been resolved and if
> > > > > someone wants to step up and change these copyright troubles I would
> > > > > be delighted.
> > > > >