From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from complex.crustytoothpaste.net (complex.crustytoothpaste.net [172.105.7.114]) (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 37FC837FF7F for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2026 21:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=172.105.7.114 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787433342; cv=none; b=COqfuTW96pJjNGu+FwidL72x780hI+H9g879XOMJUO2/pLH9oc8YYMdlvcTnfxD7U2krYDPdlVoehGtnsizePuJnE5psA+xHjAfRoXJMg6acd3huqCbkwzfJdWxk3TZmfkdnmItnfDYPD5jVyss+/FeWWzikdVxmFX5xcT3GxHs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787433342; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1jcoQrrg+ZOFFcm0IJezhK7ZkjN9NLdnp7HFt2xdfN4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ji0ncRclX7N/bFJhLRoNoyVxNEWl2YFKVL4seG72PsY81D3Nfsxm+NabiKQ8Hg1TLbfeKXeWzJwHJWt06vsm8xPcOSiZaWfZWX4HIYDesBe2vy2HrEPZYs6PKqOOw/LJbSAIv+3+9D6FflDsGD9zPYWX7j1Dr7Nw+kfM1DNxV7U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=crustytoothpaste.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=crustytoothpaste.net; dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net header.i=@crustytoothpaste.net header.b=EyIM1r1C; arc=none smtp.client-ip=172.105.7.114 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=crustytoothpaste.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=crustytoothpaste.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net header.i=@crustytoothpaste.net header.b="EyIM1r1C" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1787433336; bh=1jcoQrrg+ZOFFcm0IJezhK7ZkjN9NLdnp7HFt2xdfN4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Date:To:CC: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=EyIM1r1C6o3N0J2MKkkkS1VtJL3QZgGslQ0oxxVnJ0XaT6d4i5Olsk/9P6oFvoQkZ 7KOVqwdYKbJp+Kxo2WY0gVkAIdbm/DpJaV+Y4czWdSe4g3Wme2WzVwMpMdi6JQLodh WRpv6kvASvmd2AUMowN3ez300ejDQ0Jx/PDrtR8mANV3ehvJdV+0iODqyLzKPLpDi5 T5/EdUulhcYjby+UJq5q5zfxs4GX+vqGi/RDFBRHgh7e1tLtIh6guURZDq7ySsKI7e jhP5/FckjaJnQUv6Z+sM/9q4z6u4nLOUBmACiYD0AKoioYup2L36txLXCiOKB3ABRk HLeSg6klWu+chQpBop1ymkLJnhfFQiJSxsVw2qX6Hpsn8UND2C/zRIyBdw9Hjc/JeN OOYE77AFT9XTy78SDGATayqJgbEBL1QuYMgiA+d39mrAR0ET6slmWGCteePyrvYO7l dTU2xlz2ymWjXm/BLLFvouENaEozIqdW0lK8W3BkamuhooxKH48 Received: from fruit.crustytoothpaste.net (unknown [IPv6:2607:f2c0:f00f:f901:3e4a:aa65:6e9d:a12d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by complex.crustytoothpaste.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E176E20101; Sat, 22 Aug 2026 21:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 21:15:35 +0000 From: "brian m. carlson" To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Alexey Samsonov via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Samsonov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] treewide: migrate from legacy utime.h to utimensat Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: "brian m. carlson" , Junio C Hamano , Alexey Samsonov via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Samsonov References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="b5EUN2Bp6VXukB6y" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.4.1 (2026-07-04) --b5EUN2Bp6VXukB6y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2026-08-22 at 17:59:09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "brian m. carlson" writes: >=20 > > On 2026-08-21 at 14:23:20, Alexey Samsonov via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> This change is generated by Gemini Flash from Antigravity, but all the= code > >> has been manually verified by me, and, where applicable, adjusted to m= atch > >> the existing behavior as closely as possible. > > > > Unfortunately, I don't think that's allowed. From SubmittingPatches[0]: > > > > The Developer's Certificate of Origin requires contributors to cert= ify > > that they know the origin of their contributions to the project and > > that they have the right to submit it under the project's license. > > It's not yet clear that this can be legally satisfied when submitti= ng > > significant amount of content that has been generated by AI tools. > > > > I therefore haven't read this series to avoid being influenced by code > > we're not allowed to include. > > > > [0] https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#ai >=20 > Your stance, as I understand it, is that Alexey's DCO is not valid > because, acting as a copy editor of Antigravity/Gemini's work, > Alexey cannot possibly know where the code was copied from. And we > cannot accept work that is not covered by a valid DCO. Yes. We know that in some cases LLMs regurgitate code that is substantially similar to training inputs and we don't know what the legal status of the output of an LLM is, especially since there is active litigation around the world. The DCO was invented to provide a legal assertion by an author that they are only submitting code they legally have the right to submit and I don't think there's enough legal clarity for us to know that with an LLM. > I think that is a much more prudent attitude than being cavalier > about legal issues. I used to think, "Hey, the person claims in the > DCO that the code is appropriately licensed, so if it turns out to > be a false claim later, that is his or her problem, not ours." >=20 > But that is not how things work. It's my understanding that in many places there's a difference between knowingly doing something and doing something without knowledge. For example, Canada's Copyright Act uses the text, "that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright". So we do have more of a legal problem if we knowingly distribute code that infringes copyright or which we suspect may do so. > If work submitted under a DCO later turns out to be based on > something we cannot legally use, the submitter may of course be in > trouble, but we would also need to bear the cost of ripping it out; > the later we discover the problem, the more substantial the effort > necessary to deal with the fallout will be. Yes, that's true. We still have the fallout and issues in terms of project management to deal with, but fewer legal problems. > Stepping back a bit, though, is the situation really all that > different between a relatively new author who discloses their use of > AI and another author similarly unknown to us who claims it is all > their own work? Either way, if the code turns out to be unusable, > we would still be on the hook for participating in the infringement > and would bear the cost of ripping it out. >=20 > What worries me a bit is that there may not be much difference > between "you said that you relayed AI output, so we won't talk to > you" and "we do not know you well enough to trust you, so we won't > talk to you". If somebody comes to our project and lies to us about the provenance of their work, that's very serious. Saying, "I wrote this with AI," when we don't allow AI is being honest and ethical and disclosing relevant details to the project. It may be that we can't accept their code for that reason, but they have participated in the project in good faith. We could certainly accept other patches from such a person written without AI. But if a contributor misleads us about the origin of their code, whether it came from AI or was taken without credit from another project, then they're not at all acting in good faith and we will likely not allow them to continue to contribute to the project. Moreover, they will also be unwelcome in most other projects as well because they'll be viewed as dishonest. That doesn't affect whether we end up having negative consequences from distributing that code, true. But at some point, we have to trust that most people are honest or our community and society break down. --=20 brian m. carlson (they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA --b5EUN2Bp6VXukB6y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wr0EABYKAG8FgmqKEXcJEHwMSWKIh6KBRxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25z LnNlcXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZ8sbtg/wYTR9iBltNz6sF/UhE+X067LFQVG48G3ZNiUU FiEECCzmip28ZfuD0cORfAxJYoiHooEAAIyFAQCHIPxCyYrd98LZnGpZzEr3gcE3 yYVykoAI/TgjNdo1RwEAwt0/X23ewyAulZde6jOqKb/oF7WTTQDa35gY3x/tHgA= =vpfX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --b5EUN2Bp6VXukB6y--