Thread

Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

422 points · 290 comments · ADevWithAnIdea

carterschonwald · 1789510797 · focus · HN ↗
im pretty literate in intellectual property, but im pretty confused about the no looking at binary code artifacts bit.
1. ADevWithAnIdea · 1789512203 · focus · HN ↗
  TL;DR:
  1. We want to guarantee our work is not a "derivative work" of anything Apple wrote.
  2. If we look at any Apple binaries, there's no way prove that our code didn't borrow from Apple.
  3. Since we didn't look at any Apple binaries, then there's no way our work can be a derivative work-- we didn't even look at their stuff.
  1. larpingscholar · 1789513140 · focus · HN ↗
    Wouldn't using OpenAI break the cleanroom?
    josephg · 1789516693 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would it? Unless you think OpenAI is training on Apple’s proprietary code?
    Orphis · 1789566858 · focus · HN ↗
    They could claim that some employee one day used their model to ask a question about internal stuff and they trained on that.
    It doesn't have to necessarily have to make sense to make a claim, but it doesn't necessarily bear any weight.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.