From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88C3B27A92D for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 15:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773070296; cv=none; b=kt0TkWo5UOqLnEjTHo5Cu+2x4U1PHGPOErCbNNUX8m8lWdlqZfdBlQQmw2bxjMJJkYBscmJcfjsw5vs9Ao9D8z1+ChQmBjFDN2TVtSBz5CVz31lCslOE0SmPVm03Lm9tuHhDtHSNKRJMSVwe6YtHjcfora1/6uPhq7ki+VfI/fs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773070296; c=relaxed/simple; bh=62g1SO+BAs8cCwczJovUb3nQii+EYR/28XVFygn+GRg=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Pp/EddSWfVC78j8To8t9xW/tzgVM8/l6/p2uo/7OT5RCCYNQPX0O4WBR/CgbIEkCE4gpxUzjMLCr9ckO2BrApI4x2gdnmtyZrszs0NXrAKjVjvBMFFBhOXAfixWtibiU6beQnVOY4HZ1YZj+IFKIvhhRHaHfCyb5AkwrT803uwU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=gOBLoCb/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="gOBLoCb/" Received: from ehlo.thunderbird.net (c-76-133-66-138.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 629FVBnA4059300 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Mar 2026 08:31:11 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 629FVBnA4059300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2026022301; t=1773070272; bh=syVOJHvWkTR41eU/o63Apcdt7envr37xU47DxrkD9H4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gOBLoCb/naGib2FlXFK8wVwO51Njcs2QVxjCtL3qFu2kNEJjgIRbLBoyEcWQJViHp 0zK0D9b1DSuKtStNxOykrNWDz8ARrsOXHQcnNSwZj6dhx5Js8hoqFk/6l3/6GLAr/a x+6W8cEDOAaJUGdN4OEx/vEy7avZUIDl9xlF30m6BzOAkfXM+j+aeRxPr2ZMwHQMga vTsDbfDAJsF3sd4aRK3y6jlavR5Py26Cj5g4Rl1WHgRU/kQf+Tsl860IayF1z85FDP 4R7DSbDovkvT88obZDwL9RIkdMazYmC2r0P3q/nuQezxI9boAJa/oYJ9vH6djWEuGy +3JWB2mXjaGjA== Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 08:31:03 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" To: Steven Rostedt , Christian Brauner CC: tech-board-discuss@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, christianvanbrauner@gmail.com Subject: Re: LLM based rewrites User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20260309095705.7a6b6177@gandalf.local.home> References: <20260307-clean-room-6118793eb175@brauner> <20260309095705.7a6b6177@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On March 9, 2026 6:57:05 AM PDT, Steven Rostedt wro= te: >On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 21:49:20 +0100 >Christian Brauner wrote: > >> Hey, > >Hi Christian, > >>=20 >> I believe it is a rite of passage to at least once cause a shouting >> match with a non-technical topic=2E >>=20 >> It seems increasingly viable to rewrite an entire codebase using an LLM >> and it currently looks like there's at least some examples as in [1] >> where people try to use an LLM based rewrite as a clean-room >> implementation to relicense the project=2E I think the FOSDEM talk at [= 2] >> is related to this as well=2E >>=20 >> Maybe this is a "let's worry about it later" situation but I wonder >> whether this is something that the LF or TAB is actively following=2E >>=20 >> I'm not asking for a legal analysis=2E I'm mostly looking for reassuran= ce >> that we as the kernel community and our representatives have an eye on >> this=2E I find this quite worrisome=2E >>=20 >> Fwiw, I was made aware that there's a tangentially related discussion o= n >> the distribution mailing list at [3]=2E > >Thanks for bringing this up=2E I'll bring this up as a topic for our next >meeting=2E Although it may not be much we can do about it except be aware= of >what is happening=2E > >-- Steve > > >>=20 >> Thanks! >> Christian >>=20 >> Link: https://github=2Ecom/chardet/chardet/issues/327 [1] >> Link: https://github=2Ecom/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7=2E0=2E0 [1] >> Link: https://fosdem=2Eorg/2026/schedule/event/SUVS7G-lets_end_open_sou= rce_together_with_this_one_simple_trick [2] >> Link: https://lore=2Ekernel=2Eorg/a3f792e918674e208492a077679ae6ffc88ce= 0c9=2Ecamel@gentoo=2Eorg [3] > > It is somewhat hard to see how that would constitute a "clean-room" rewrit= e=2E A clean-room rewrite entails two teams, one (the "clean" room) which m= ust be certified to have never seen the code in question, and all communica= tions between the two teams must be auditable=2E