Re: Provisions to the contribution guidelines for using LLM generated code

Also I want to retract my previous statement about a renewing a patent, I was absolutely talking about something I apparently know nothing about there; 

No, you cannot renew a patent in the United States. However, you can maintain your patent to extend its validity period. Explanation
    • 
The term of a US patent is fixed, and it cannot be extended past the period for which it was issued. 
    • The term of a US utility patent is 20 years, and the term of a US design patent is 15 years. 
    • When a patent expires, its rights are discharged into the public domain. 
    • The term of a patent can be extended in rare cases, but these cases must be validated by a special act of Congress. 


> On Jan 31, 2025, at 12:43 PM, paige@paige.bio wrote:
> 
>> In the second case, I have deliberately used a plagiarism machine
> 
> I get what you're saying that it makes easy work of an otherwise difficult task but I don’t think that inherently is what makes it a plagiarism machine. I think people who have lives and kids to raise generally like to contribute anything that adds quality to their own life and given the circumstances will want to take the path of least resistance. It’s entirely possible for somebody with good intentions to use something like an LLM and for things like Microsoft’s obscure hash table patent to be completely lost on people who are responsible to say whether or not something gets merged. There are of course people who will blatantly break the rules with the intent to deceive and put things in places that they don’t belong but that is a different problem than the one I have in mind and my point is that even though the two are mutually exclusive they are not always handled in their own unique way like they should be and that’s unfortunate for people who have good intentions and the overall reputation of LLMs.  
> 
>> Microsoft has issued an explicit patent grant of the exFAT patents *for Linux*.  The ‘Open’ Innovation Network
> 
> Sorry to mix threads here, but you’re right and this is also what I mean; a lot of people might see something has a GPL implementation and won't immediately arrive at the conclusion that it’s only because they have permission to implement that idea and make it GPL. The only reason that I know any better is because I’ve watched Paragon Software for more than 20 years try to make NTFS-3G a thing for Linux users. If I’m being honest with you, Microsoft doesn’t just have an idea they have a monopoly on how you can exchange data between computers that effectively makes it impossible (still to this day) to use anything that they’re not vetting. 
> 
>> If a committer deliberately violates copyright, the code will be removed and the committer will, most likely, lose commit access.
> 
> Honestly I know it doesn’t do a whole lot of good to speculate about what could become of LLMs at the moment, but I feel like if they keep improving this that pretty soon somebody will be able to generate their own driver for virtually anything they want and they won’t need to share it because anybody else will be able to do the same. For a few hours of work I already have: 
> 
> - a KEXT for ExFAT (compiles)
> - fsck_exfat (compiles)
> - newfs_exfat (compiles)
> - mount_exfat (compiles)
> 
> And granted none of them produce the correct filesystem (it’s trying to) or handle a filesystem created by any other means (it also makes a concerted effort to do this)--it’s really close. I think we might actually see something that is powerful enough to create a solution like this given a prompt in the next couple of years and realistically contributions won’t mean much because people will be able to make whatever they want or need for themselves and they won’t have to distribute it. 
> 
> I guess what I’m wondering is how will FreeBSD stay relevant when this becomes a reality? I understand reality is much different from this as it stands but I also gather the intention is to improve LLMs to bring this reality into fruition. I think there’s an opportunity to embrace the technology that is coming, but that there should be rules and a vision behind it. I think it’s coming faster than a lot of people can even keep up and there might not be any time as good as the present to start thinking about it.
> 
>> Next year, I believe, all patents on the original version of exFAT will have expired
> 
> I mean... they could renew their patents, but one has to wonder towards what end at this point? As far as I know the only benefit to patenting something is just so that you can’t reproduce somebody’s idea and reap the benefits of redistribution. Really makes you think… 
> 
> -Paige
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 31, 2025, at 3:23 AM, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 30 Jan 2025, at 12:03, Sulev-Madis Silber <freebsd-hackers-freebsd-org952@ketas.si.pri.ee> wrote:
>>> 
>>> what happens if you take the word llm out and put a human in there?
>>> 
>>> there are ton of fbsd contributors and i often wonder if some of them bring something in. apparently it's no "code-id" where we can put code for checks. esp i worry about all those linuxkpi things. where's the voluntary no consequences drug test that proves you didn't smoke any gpl before you opened code editor
>>> 
>>> it's like llm is right out but humans are all ok?
>> 
>> 
>> No, as I said, the following two are equivalent:
>> 
>> - I copy some GPL’d code (or code with a license that requires an attribution) and contribute it in such a way that violates the license.
>> - I use an LLM to copy some GPL’d code (or code with a license that requires an attribution) and contribute it in such a way that violates the license.
>> 
>> The difference is that, in the first case, I *know* that I am doing so.  In the second case, I have deliberately used a plagiarism machine but don’t know whether this specific output is copyright violation or not.
>> 
>> If a committer deliberately violates copyright, the code will be removed and the committer will, most likely, lose commit access.  Committers are responsible for the code that they commit, but if they are using a plagiarism machine then the chances of them committing accidental copyright infringement are much higher and that’s a risk to the project.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
> 
>