linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=whczwG=+-sAzoWoTY_VOwdFH3b5AkvQbgh+z98=p1iaXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:36:00 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	"workflows@...r.kernel.org" <workflows@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"ksummit@...ts.linux.dev" <ksummit@...ts.linux.dev>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, 
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 at 11:18, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> Copyright reasons, mainly.

I really don't see the argument.

The copyright issues are all true for all other code too. In fact, the
copyright issues are a thing whether tools were involved or not.

Copyright is *always* a thing.

We have a fair chunk of actual generated "new" code, whether it is the
millions of lines of register descriptions from hardware companies, or
it's the millions of lines of unicode data.

(Ok, the unicode data is just a few thousand lines, I exaggerate. But
we really do have several million lines AMD GPU headers that must have
been generated from hw descriptors, and there we didn't even ask for
the tool or the source, just for the usual copyright sign-off).

I really don't see what makes AI generated content so special.

Yes, I think you need to specify what the tool was and what the
conditions were for the change, but again - none of that is actually
new in ANY way.

This all feels like the usual AI hype-fest. Because THAT is the thing
that is truly special about AI. The hype, and the billions and
billions of dollars.

I claim that copyright is no different just because it was artificial.

What's the copyright difference between artificial intelligence and
good oldfashioned wetware that isn't documented by "I used this tool
and these sources".

It's just another tool, guys. It's one that makes some people a lot of
money, and yes, it will change society. But it's still just a tool.

                Linus