> The fact that working on Linux code will now require corporate backing to pay for the AI will also aid in taking Linux away from the free software community
This isn't remotely true, it is fictional ragebait
> By ensuring nobody can tell which parts of a work are AI-generated, it becomes impossible to claim copyright protection on it in the US
Not true. As long as any of the code is human written the copyright can be enforced. You would have to have a kernel that is entirely AI written.
As far as I can see they are only dropping the need to add a note to commits which is only part of what you need to follow the Copyright Office procedure. What you really want is things like the prompt history. it also seems the information will be recorded in a "cover letter". If these are kept it seems fine.
The fact that the AI companies like to push the "assisted by" tag might be a clue that dropping it is not some corporate plot.
> The fact that working on Linux code will now require corporate backing to pay for the AI will also aid in taking Linux away from the free software community.
1) are corporations not part of the community? 2) can individuals not afford access to LLMs?
> Torvalds said that the time has come to make it harder for new people to contribute code to the kernel.
because they have too many low quality contributions from first time contributors.
Also the LWN article says:
> Pinchart asked Torvalds to confirm that he is not trying to push out developers who do not use LLMs; Torvalds agreed that he is not. Pinchart added that it is important to communicate that message to the community. Torvalds added that he does not want to scare off people who want to write code; his message is that you have to either put in the effort to learn, or put a lot of money into an LLM to participate.
You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain. Fork it, run it, make it better. That's the gift of GPL. Just because you can't spin it up on EC2 (yet) doesn't make it a worse kernel. Lots of hosting providers accept custom images.
It has been for a maybe 10 years. I take the recent announcements as "proof" the Linux Foundation does not care about hiding that fact. It is too bad, some distros are trying to avoid following corporate mandates, but I think their days are numbered. The Debian/AI vote proves that.
Another indication is the on-going rewrite of GNU UN*X utilities to a different License. Corporations hate the GPL. With clang, rust/uutil and now pgp rewritten in another license, distros are well on their way to being non-GPL. I have popcorn out waiting to see how Companies will move the kernel from the GPL2 to something else.
As the concern in the article is that it will undermine enforcement of the GPL how are the BSDs superior with regard to that specific issue? How is not having a copyleft license to enforce better (for someone who wants copyleft, of course) than not having a copyleft license?
Linus has been a corporate tool ever since he was forced to take a "retreat" for getting "counseling" for better behavior.
Powerful, aging maintainers who welcome the AI crutch and accelerate the demise of open source is something I would not have predicted, but here we are.
In mathematics similar events are taking place and some tenured professors sell out the next generation.
> The obvious benefit is that when the kernel gets noticeably worse and terrible defects are found
At some point, you are going to have to accept that AI can out code you. And if you really are in the 99th percentile of coders, AI will be able to out code you in 3 months.
Once upon a time, Linus had a bit about Good Taste in code[1], but it's hard to see that thinking at play delegating code to a machine.
I'm not really shocked to see this happening, even though I remain disappointed. Not the sheer use factor, tools are tools in my humble opinion, but the disregard for the lowly hackers who established the foundations and culture that led here. That is going to die, as the exclusionary pressures build.
Unfortunate, I guess next maybe I'll wait for the Year of the Plan9 Desktop.
> The fact that working on Linux code will now require corporate backing to pay for the AI will also aid in taking Linux away from the free software community
This isn't remotely true, it is fictional ragebait
This whole post feels like bait
Nothing is stopping YOU from doing that. If you enjoy working that way, have at it.> By ensuring nobody can tell which parts of a work are AI-generated, it becomes impossible to claim copyright protection on it in the US
Not true. As long as any of the code is human written the copyright can be enforced. You would have to have a kernel that is entirely AI written.
As far as I can see they are only dropping the need to add a note to commits which is only part of what you need to follow the Copyright Office procedure. What you really want is things like the prompt history. it also seems the information will be recorded in a "cover letter". If these are kept it seems fine.
The fact that the AI companies like to push the "assisted by" tag might be a clue that dropping it is not some corporate plot.
> The fact that working on Linux code will now require corporate backing to pay for the AI will also aid in taking Linux away from the free software community.
1) are corporations not part of the community? 2) can individuals not afford access to LLMs?
> Torvalds said that the time has come to make it harder for new people to contribute code to the kernel.
because they have too many low quality contributions from first time contributors.
Also the LWN article says:
> Pinchart asked Torvalds to confirm that he is not trying to push out developers who do not use LLMs; Torvalds agreed that he is not. Pinchart added that it is important to communicate that message to the community. Torvalds added that he does not want to scare off people who want to write code; his message is that you have to either put in the effort to learn, or put a lot of money into an LLM to participate.
This article is alarmist ragebait.
You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain. Fork it, run it, make it better. That's the gift of GPL. Just because you can't spin it up on EC2 (yet) doesn't make it a worse kernel. Lots of hosting providers accept custom images.
It has been for a maybe 10 years. I take the recent announcements as "proof" the Linux Foundation does not care about hiding that fact. It is too bad, some distros are trying to avoid following corporate mandates, but I think their days are numbered. The Debian/AI vote proves that.
Another indication is the on-going rewrite of GNU UN*X utilities to a different License. Corporations hate the GPL. With clang, rust/uutil and now pgp rewritten in another license, distros are well on their way to being non-GPL. I have popcorn out waiting to see how Companies will move the kernel from the GPL2 to something else.
It was nice while it lasted.
That's why FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD are superior.
As the concern in the article is that it will undermine enforcement of the GPL how are the BSDs superior with regard to that specific issue? How is not having a copyleft license to enforce better (for someone who wants copyleft, of course) than not having a copyleft license?
Linus has been a corporate tool ever since he was forced to take a "retreat" for getting "counseling" for better behavior.
Powerful, aging maintainers who welcome the AI crutch and accelerate the demise of open source is something I would not have predicted, but here we are.
In mathematics similar events are taking place and some tenured professors sell out the next generation.
> The obvious benefit is that when the kernel gets noticeably worse and terrible defects are found
At some point, you are going to have to accept that AI can out code you. And if you really are in the 99th percentile of coders, AI will be able to out code you in 3 months.
It's easier to live in reality.
Once upon a time, Linus had a bit about Good Taste in code[1], but it's hard to see that thinking at play delegating code to a machine.
I'm not really shocked to see this happening, even though I remain disappointed. Not the sheer use factor, tools are tools in my humble opinion, but the disregard for the lowly hackers who established the foundations and culture that led here. That is going to die, as the exclusionary pressures build.
Unfortunate, I guess next maybe I'll wait for the Year of the Plan9 Desktop.
[1] https://felipec.github.io/good-taste/parts/1.html