Comment by thrwy19940314
13 hours ago
All this work is tainted since the poster is ex-Apple[1]. There is no way Linux will take that code, since people from Apple also contribute to Linux and this creates a major conflict.
There's also ongoing issues around Codex for this sort of thing, given Apple is suing OpenAI over stolen trade secrets[2]. And nobody knows whether training data in other models is similarly tainted.
[1]: https://codyho.dev/documents/cody_ho_resume.pdf
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/10/apple-sue...
Now that this work is done and out in the open what in theory would prevent the next generation of LLMs from ingesting it and eventually a non-Apple employee creating yet another driver “from scratch” but with the knowledge of how the hardware works acquired from an LLM or with the help of one?
Basically, aren’t we facing a situation where LLM-assisted knowledge laundering is becoming a thing?
Some arguments in the Apple vs OpenAI case look like they could lead to a decision on whether an LLM can wash away copyright or not.
Yes, as well as accountability laundering. Technofascists are loving it.
Nobody has been held accountable for AI selecting a grade school as a bombing target on the first day of America and Israel’s strikes on Iran. 100+ school girls killed, and no accountability.
Linking to another HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49719480
Resume says : "Machine Learning Engineer".
Exactly how does that equate to knowing details of Apple's GPU implementation? Apple is a massive company.
The detractors around here would like to cede the absolute maximum possible territory that can be ceded to the copyright bully types, to avoid even the slightest possibility of trouble. "Did you even once enter Caffe Macs and eat a croissant? Stay 100 feet away from every FOSS project for life. Otherwise the beast might threaten us with a lawsuit."
> All this work is tainted since the poster is ex-Apple[1].
So if I worked as a janitor at Apple, I couldn't contribute anymore?
I’m glad I did my one Linux kernel driver contribution before I worked at Apple. What a surprise to know that I’ll never be able to contribute to it ever again.
I don't give a flying fuck.
Ignoring the idiocy of Imaginary Property is how China is winning.
It's time we caught up and then leap ahead. Everything is a derivative work.
So, what do you do for a living?
If you're going to make some kind of argument about the benefits of copyright for preserving software jobs, keep in mind this is a driver for hardware apple sells. Everyone would be better off if drivers were mandatory open source.
1 reply →
Why do you hide behind throwaway accounts instead of just using your identity ? its harder to listen if you dont want to say who you are
There were and are many important pieces of Linux kernel that live out of tree; ZFS is a big example.
The problem with this driver is not licensing or code quality; I assume it's under a threat of receiving C&D letter, or maybe also a legal suit for breaking some NDA.
> important pieces of Linux kernel that live out of tree; ZFS is a big example.
Including the proprietary GPU drivers. If this MacBook driver end up out of tree, so be it.
Very sad. I really want to get Linux on newer Apple chips working flawlessly but I can understand the legal minefield about this particular work.
That’s fine. Linux upstream won’t take his code but you can for your own purposes.
There is no reason Linux the Kernel upstream wont take his code. Asahi is not Linux upstream.
The only cost was a month of llm usage. If the legal questions matter to you, you or someone else should be able to spend some tokens to redo their work in a similar way. I doubt Apple will actually care much about this. But even if they do, the worst they’ll do is get the repo taken down.
It may also be legal to do the following: 1. Have an llm read all the code these people have written and produce extensive documentation. 2. Have another llm consume that documentation and write another working driver. I am not a lawyer but I think this may fall under fair use, because reverse engineering is allowed for interoperability.
Nobody does. We're only about to start settling it in courts, likely the supreme ones.
I meant I can understand the fact that a legal minefield exists.
I didn't mean that I understand the actual intricacies of the legal situation.
Sorry for my confusing wording.
> and this creates a major conflict.
Apparently. But Apple should be ashamed of themselves for that fact. What are they so afraid of? That Mac OS is so inferior to Linux that if they publish specs so that a driver can be made, that everyone will wipe Mac OS off their disks like it's Windows ME??
Once again, modern Apple is allergic to competing on their product's merits, clinging to force as though it's the only way anyone will choose them. Which is insane to me given how loyal their following is. I'm typing this shit on Mac OS right now.
Apple comes off like the most insecure corporate culture in history.
> There's also ongoing issues around Codex for this sort of thing, given Apple is suing OpenAI over stolen trade secrets
these two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other whatsoever
> There is no way Linux will take that code, since people from Apple also contribute to Linux and this creates a major conflict.
I guess author can cleanup the code and try upstream it themself. Then let's see what Linus thinks of it.