this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
445 points (95.9% liked)
Linux Gaming
24859 readers
663 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.
Resources
WWW:
- Linux Gaming wiki
- Gaming on Linux
- ProtonDB
- Lutris
- PCGamingWiki
- LibreGameWiki
- Boiling Steam
- Phoronix
- Linux VR Adventures
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But as you can see, the maintainer didn't stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.
It may be that he could be sued for license infringement for violating the GPL 3 license by feeding code and using improperly licensed code.
Idk how all the lawsuits will fall, but imo, by not disclosing AI use it jeopardizes the license requirements for everyone who ever contributed to the project. Best case the project is essentially public domain for any components edited after this change.
Yeah, I'm interested to see how it turns out. Realistically I don't think we'll see models training on GPL code making the model or it's output "GPL'ed" because (I think, but I could be mistaken) there's already been a court case about training models on copyrighted content and the court ruled that it was okay. The GPL, while extremely restrictive, is still more permissive than the default "all rights reserved" approach of copyright. That is to say, if courts ruled that copyrighted content in models is fine they'd also rule that copyleft content in models is fine. (Which sucks, and not really something I'm sure I agree with, but I'm also not a lawyer or a judge.)
My understanding is that, regardless of it was AI or not, machine output cannot be copyrighted. I'm not sure where the line is and how much tweaking you'd need to do to for it to suddenly become something you're protected under copyright. With things like code, as opposed to images, I think we'll likely see that devs get copyright over it. Because I think most of the time they're tweaking it some. Generally with image generation I don't think folks are tweaking the output, unless they themselves are an artist, and for the most part most artists I've seen are more opposed to AI than devs. But who knows? It'll probably take someone copying code that was created by AI and the creator/prompter having to backup that what they did was enough to grant them protection under copyright law. But by that point, I'm really talking out of my depth, this is just a guess.
My most realistic outlook on it is fairly pessimistic. I think model creators will still be able to use copyrighted and copyleft works however they see fit and I think for all practical purposes most folks using generators will likely be tweaking or prompting creatively enough in some way to successfully argue that the result is something they made using the AI as a tool rather than something the computer just generated on its own.
Imo, I'd prefer a "contamination" approach where the strictest licenses in the training data applies to all outputs. I doubt such a rule would get through big business filters but it would maximize the public good and any country that does manage something like that would probably gain the most benefits from these companies.
The strictest license in the training set is definitely just the normal copyright protections, which is more strict than copyleft.
This specific developer is not the only audience to this behavior.
What do you think is more likely from devs who use AI who see this?
They will obviously stop saying they use AI, much like republicans pretend they're not racist. So?
I call the both of them cowards who refuse to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
I don't really think there's a problem with saying this sort of thing about devs who use AI if you believe all AI code usage is bad. I'm only saying that if you actually want them to stop using AI instead of just expressing your disdain then there are better approaches. Opening an issue to insult a volunteer developer on their personal project will not get the change you want to see.
I am a strong believer in the power of shame. Republican racists must be taught that their options are either to bend to my will or shut up permanently. I don't really care if they agree with me or not.
Now, that's pretty provocative. I am not presently mounting rifles at LLM users. But, I do think it shows that I have more determination than you do.
I guess that's sort of the disconnect for me. I'm imagining a world where the maintainer, instead of using AI and signing the commits off that they did, that instead they were putting a Nazi slogan in every commit message. My opinion would be different. I wouldn't have this middle of the road sort of "maybe you should try to actually get them to change what they're doing instead of shaming them." Hell, if that were the case I'd probably join in too, or at least throw a thumbs down on their defense of themselves. And I'm not trying to compare AI usage to genocide or say that folks view them as equivalent, I'm just saying that there are topics where I do think going fully on the offensive are warranted.
Maybe I really should self reflect on that, because I am a firm believer that protests aren't meant to be comfortable. Maybe me saying "they shouldn't insult a volunteer on an issue tracker" is the same as people complaining about "politics in football" by saying Kaepernick shouldn't have been taking a knee during the national anthem, in some ways.
Naw dog