Well, well, well…

Asahi Linux is the reason you can run Linux on an Apple Silicon Mac today. For years, the project put most of its own code under the MIT license so that anyone, including the BSDs, could reuse it as needed.

That is changing because Asahi Linux is tired of code laundering. They have announced that Asahi is moving all of its repositories to the GNU General Public License version 2 or later. Going forward, all Asahi Linux code will be under strong copyleft licenses only.

This is because people were taking in-development code straight out of their personal forks, publishing it without credit, or rewriting it with AI to hide its origin for “replacing the project and aggressively monetising Linux on Apple Silicon.”

What is code laundering?

Code laundering (also called license laundering) is the practice of taking someone else’s code and passing it through a process that hides where it came from, so you can use it without honoring the original license or crediting the author.

Before AI, this usually meant manually rewriting code line by line, renaming variables and stuff, and shuffling functions around until it no longer looked like the original.

LLMs made it much more easy and cheaper of course.

The MIT license only asks you to keep the original copyright notice. It doesn’t require you to share your changes or keep your version open. That’s what makes it popular, and it’s also what made things problematic for Asahi here.

Learning from history

The move has come after the Asahi team was made aware “some time ago” of multiple attempts to exploit its permissive licensing to hijack its work.

In the most extreme cases, feature code that was still under development was lifted from developers’ personal forks before it was even publicly released. The report points out that the MIT license “explicitly allows this, and has no carveouts to protect against bad faith actors.”

Asahi didn’t name anyone in the report. It also didn’t spell out how existing contributions will be relicensed or whether every past contributor agreed to it.

Asahi draws parallels with WINE’s situation two decades ago. WINE, the compatibility layer that lets you run Windows apps on Linux, was originally MIT-licensed too. But in the late 90s and early 2000s, companies took the code, built proprietary forks on top of it, and sold them commercially. So, in 2002, the WINE team relicensed to the LGPL to discourage proprietary forks and push companies to contribute upstream.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Asahi has been upset lately

Asahi didn’t name anyone so we are left with guesswork on who they are targeting with this license move.

There have been at least two public forks of Asahi’s work in recent months, both tied to AI-assisted development. In case you did not know, Asahi Linux forbids AI generated code contribution.

The first is Aurora Silicon and its Vulkan driver, Borealis. Borealis is a fork of Asahi’s HoneyKrisp, the Vulkan driver for Apple GPUs. Aurora Silicon submitted a pull request to register its own Vulkan driver ID with Khronos (VK_DRIVER_ID_AURORA_BOREALIS), says the driver runs on M1 to M5 and the A18 Pro, and keeps it in its own Mesa fork rather than upstream.

The second is Gravity Linux, a Fedora-based distro for Apple Silicon. It was forked from Asahi over the disagreement about LLM use.

To be fair to Gravity, it is open source, it isn’t selling anything, and it credits its AI use openly. It even says it plans to sunset the distro once its driver work lands upstream.

It isn’t the kind of bad actor the progress report describes. But it does represent the “permissive fork that embraces AI” approach that Asahi has consistently pushed back against.

For clarification, Asahi’s progress report does not mention Aurora Silicon or Gravity Linux by name. I have provided their conflict with Asahi as context.

Why this license change matters

As far as I can tell, this is the first time a major open source project has moved to copyleft specifically because of AI-assisted code laundering. Projects have relicensed before, but usually to stop cloud providers from reselling their work as a service. This one is specifically about AI.

I wouldn’t be surprised if more hardware enablement and reverse-engineering projects follow. Making the first changes takes a lot of time and effort but they are easier to “rewrite” once someone has done the hard part.

Will the GPL actually help?

If the problem is people who already ignore the MIT license, why would they respect the GPL? After all, GPL cannot stop a determined bad actor. Nothing does, actually.

Stripping attribution from MIT code already breaks the MIT license, since keeping the copyright notice is its one real condition.

What the GPL changes is the commercial benefit. Under MIT, someone can take Asahi’s code, close it up, and sell a product, and that’s perfectly legal as long as the notice stays in.

Under the GPL, anyone who distributes a modified version has to release the source under the same license. You can’t legally build a closed, paid Apple Silicon distro on top of GPL code. And if a product’s source has to be public, the copying is easier to spot. Not everyone is happy

The move has drawn criticism, particularly from the BSD side, which was one of the main reasons Asahi chose MIT in the first place. OpenBSD’s Apple Silicon support relies on Asahi’s m1n1 bootloader.

OpenBSD developer Bryan Steele wrote on X:

"Sad to see Asahi out there burning bridges for no reason.. relicensing m1n1 and drivers under GPL2-or-later, seemingly without the consent of all prior contributors, under the guise of "defending against AI bad actors", seems entirely disingenuous and misguided."

Wrapping up

Asahi is betting that copyleft license provides a better defense in this changed world where anyone can launder code with a prompt.

It may not stop the bad actors from rewriting its code, but at least it reduces the chances of a closed commercial fork.

It would be interesting to see whether the BSD community finds a way to keep working with Asahi under the new terms.

  • Flatearth_Habeebi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Honest question, why would anyone use those MIT and BSD licenses? To me personally (no disrespect intended here), it seems very stupid. If I understand correctly, these licenses allow you to take the code and make it proprietary and you don’t have to contribute your changes back like GPL requires! If I’m understanding this wrong, please do explain. Thanks.

    • Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 hours ago

      MIT is meant to be usable for propietary software, but also able to be distributed away for free with just the attribution notice. MIT defends its own freedom while not defending the freedom of prograams that use it.

    • TrollAccount69@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You got a lot of answers that explain why it might be less of a headache for a programmer who uses their output personally & in the office and how being able to sell code they didn’t write benefits anyone selling software but not anything about the social benefits of an mit license.

      If you developed a new powerful, secure and ultralight cryptographic algorithm for example, you might consider it a public good to place that code under an mit license so users of open and closed source software from freely distributed or for profit companies could benefit from it with as little friction as possible.

      I’m no supporter of mit over gpl, but that argument is not something to be discounted.

      • chgxvjh [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Yeah all seems a bit backwards. Might better to first think about

        • why are we releasing out code in the first place
        • why under a license.

        People take this as self evident and than pick the most restrictive license they can find.

      • milbyte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 minutes ago

        if the standards are open, what is the problem with open sourcing code that implements that standard?

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      5 hours ago

      People do it because they think being able to use code at work without dealing with legal issues more important than protecting the software from exploitation.

      It’s kinda classic American capitalist freedom thinking.

      American: Freedom = no regulations Others: Freedom has to be protected by regulations

      • Mactan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 hours ago

        it turns out you can use all the GPL code you want at work now, just run it through an AI! license laundering for all!

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        If you are the owner of all the copyright (you are if you can choose license), then you can use your work in multiple places regardless if you released it as GPL in one place, you can re-license it under different conditions (eg. using it at work).

        There have been cases (see Nexuiz) that the copyright holder of a GPL project has accepted money from a company to allow them to use it. This is one of the reasons why the FSF recommends assigning the copyright of GPL projects to the FSF itself, instead of to an individual.

    • chgxvjh [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/117580357792732305 has a sound explanation for example. It’s a bit small business brained but the idea that volunteer programmers are using copyright to fight large enterprises is lib brained as well.

      There is also some sillyness like GPL being incompatible with the Apache license. Not that anyone but Debian takes that serious. I’ve also seen a few projects disappear because after years of work they figures out that their GPL project is inherently incompatible with the GPL license (like the craftbukkit Minecraft server mod, not sure why it’s up again but there definitely has been a situation ~10 years ago).

    • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’ll provide my perspective from a very strong advocate of FOSS and GPL specifically.

      Most code I write I release under GPL because I want companies to think twice before attempting to profit off of my code. AGPL specifically requires companies to release any modifications if they are publicly released.

      I will occasionally release some code under MIT because the code is so simple and stupid, I don’t care enough if people lift it. A few spreadsheet formulas fall into this category or a dockerfile that has maybe 4 lines in it.

      • Flatearth_Habeebi@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That still doesn’t answer the question, why does anyone choose anything other than GPL? I’m having a hard time expressing my question the way it is reading my head. Damn you, English.

        • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I think it is for license compatibility with the various BSDs that are also licensed as MIT and BSD licenses. GPL has some incompatibilities.

          Other things I question is “gpl version X and newer” or giving your copyright to FSF. FSF can change the license to something that you don’t agree with in both cases for instance.

  • Obin@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    relicensing m1n1 and drivers under GPL2-or-later, seemingly without the consent of all prior contributors

    Gotta love the OpenBSD people… I doubt they even see the irony here.

  • undu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I don’t think it’s difficult to know who triggered this when the announcement for the latest Omarchy announced support for Apple hardware. Thanks, DHH

  • trojanbark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Hey look, the thing many of us have been complaining about when it comes to the MIT license has been shown to be true, imagine that

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The fact is that MIT license allow you to get the code legally, you don’t stole anything. GPL only force you to publish derivate works under the same license if you publish your project (ok, that’s not all, I know).

      But I doubt that a simple change of license is enough to stop AI tools which don’t seems to bother with this “technicalities”. It can be a starting point to sue someone, if you have the money, but nothing more.

      • Aeder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I guess the use of the legal angle is mostly so that once the courts decide whether AI training without permission is stealing or not, there is a chance that LLM companies will have to declare all the produced code under GPL/conflicting licences and will be bankrupt overnight as they will need to retrain from scratch with allowed sources.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I think that you need to use the GPL code to be found breaking the terms. I can show you GPL code and even suggesting you to use it but it is not my place to respect the use that you make of the code.

          Same with the LLM, they can suggest to you some GPL code and you can choose if use it or not.

          The big problem is that you don’t know under what license the code the LLM just wrote to implement a feature in your code is actually under, so it leave you with the short stick, so to say

    • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The legality hasn’t been fully tested in court with regards to AI. I really wonder about those going all in on AI in the free/opensource software space let alone closed software. Very well likely that it taints any projects copyrights when included intentionally.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Why are you posting the entire article? It’s generally considered kind of an asshole move towards the people that actually wrote the article.

    • alottafagina@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Site requires javascript so I appreciate OP. If that doesn’t bother you, nothing’s stopping you from clicking the article.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That’s the weakest reason I ever heard. Javascript? Srsly? If one is bothered by javascript, then they can just stop using www. PS. kudos to those few pages that don’t need/use JS.

        • alottafagina@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          You’d be surprised how much of the internet works just fine without javascript enabled. Combined with an adblocker, it’s also often a better experience on some ad-infested news sites where ublock alone just doesn’t cut it.

          You don’t have to employ a javascript whitelist if you don’t want to. I do and appreciate OP because of it.

    • Mihies@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Why are you even downvoted? Another dubious move. Ironically, the article is about intellectual property and op doesn’t care, it seems.