Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution - WIPO recommendations also seem kind of worrying

On 7/3/26 1:58 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Your messages got completely ignored for a month and a half. Most
> developers (including myself) don't read LKML due to the high traffic,
> but I'm still surprised by the complete lack of reply. Maybe CC'ing the
> [email protected] mailing list would have helped ?

Given the ongoing discussion I'm kind of wondering if it has been 
noticed by now, I apologize if it has and I just missed it.

Sadly, my concerning finds keep piling up, e.g. here's the WIPO, World 
Intellectual Property Organization, on what they recommend for AI:

https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4713

Quote: "Consider using generative AI tools that have trained solely on 
licensed, public domain, or a user's own training data. [...] Thoroughly 
vet datasets when training or fine-tuning generative AI. Verify IP 
ownership, license coverage for AI training, [...]"

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong and this isn't legal advice:

But it seems to me like neither do the Linux Foundations guidelines seem 
to be aware of this or adhere to this, nor does there seem to be a 
single coding LLM available anywhere that fulfills these.

(Since wouldn't that require training data that is both GPL-relicensing 
compatible and also doesn't require attribution? The latter I've never 
seen with any coding LLM out there.)

I wonder if the Linux Foundation would find it interesting what the WIPO 
says here, given how important the kernel is?

The angle of it just being a tool doesn't fully seem aware of such 
concerns. At least when actual LLM code is added into the kernel.

(And at the same time, it's probably possible to make such a vetted LLM 
if anybody wanted to. But that might require policies that enforce it.)

Regards,

Ellie