Am 23.03.2026 um 03:24 schrieb Damien Miller:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026, Theo de Raadt 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.
>>
>> There is a different claim that you hold copyright over large chunks of
>> new code.
> 
> This is IMO the essence of the problem here. This isn't using AI as a
> code review, refactoring or merely mechanical tool, but instead using
> it in context where it is writing code in (what appears to be) excess
> of the originator's knowledge and skill. This code in question is highly
> specific too, it's not like "go draw a stick figure of a person" and
> more like "go paint Salvador Dali's Metamorphosis of Narcissus".
> 
> Who is the copyright holder in this case?
I am kind of lost in this thread. Regarding the initial request to merge
support for an ext4 filesystem into base, I searched for documentation
about that ext4 filesystem in question. I found some GPL licensed wiki
pages. The majority of available documentation either directly or
indirectly points at GPL licensed code. In my understanding of the issue
discussed in this thread this already introduces licensing issues. Even
if you would write an ext4 filesystem driver from scratch for base, you
would almost always need to incorporate knowledge carrying an illiberal
license. I would rate that a show stopper, but I may be misunderstanding
the issue at hand.