[systemd-devel] Scan all USB devices from Linux service

[Andy Pieters]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 13:12, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:04:27PM +0000, Andy Pieters wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 09:12, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > provenance matters HUGELY when it comes to code, as you need a license
> > > and other things as well (copyright law is strict.)  "AI generated"
> code
> > > has none of that and as such, can NOT be used for almost any use until
> > > that is sorted out.
> > >
> > > Just go talk to your lawyer about the issues involved please if you
> have
> > > any questions, it's not trivial.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> > >
> >
> > I think you're moving the goalpost here by now invoking copyright law.
>
> Nope!
>
>
OK the original reply I sent was to the message Reto:

> Let's keep responses based on human interaction shall we, rather than
> parroting

math models.


To which I said,

> Comment on the code itself, what origin matter etc


But then you start talking about copyright, so that's why I feel the
goalpost was moved.



> > All I'm saying is, don't blanket ban code just because it is AI
> > 'generated'. The guy disclosed it even.
>
> And as such, you can not trust it nor use it for anything at all as
> again, the copyright and license of it is unknown and probably violates
> everyone's policies.
>

Ok, I'll byte this time. If this *were* copyrighted code would we be
breaking copyright by including it in this mailing list?
 Maybe, and since none of us has actually embedded the code in our replies,
I think only the original poster would be in jeopardy (but see [1])

Would we break copyright by discussing the code and suggesting fixes or
analysing it?
 I think not, fair use says critique is allowed, and analysing and
suggesting fixes squarely makes it critique.
 So if we were to look at the code and quote bits and pieces of it saying
'this is rubish, do it this way instead' it would fall under fair use
doctrine.

Granted, and I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think any of this really applies
to this case anyway, because of this ruling [1]

[1]
https://www.spiceworks.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/news/us-copyright-law-ai-generated-content
"U.S. Federal Judge Exempts AI-Created Content from Copyright
United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell said creative direction
and control through human involvement is essential to include it under
copyright law. "
>From April 2023
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20240215/94fa5bff/attachment.htm>