Asahi Linux relicenses to GPLv2+ after LLM-assisted code lifting
Asahi Linux (the project working on bringing Linux to Apple Silicon) has announced that they're moving all of their repositories from MIT licence to GNU General Public License v2 (or later). The reason, as they explain pretty clearly in their November 2026 progress report, is because their permissive licensing is getting abused. People are just taking their in-development feature code straight out of personal forks and re-publishing it without attribution (sometimes sloppily rewriting it with LLM help to obfuscate the source). It's legal under MIT. There are no exceptions for bad actors. So they're moving away from it.
This is just a little story about someone making a licence choice. But it's at the intersection of three bigger stories: the economics of open source licensing, the use of LLMs for code laundering, and the limits of what a licence can actually protect. So worth reading closely because all of this is relevant to more than just Asahi.
What happened
Asahi Linux is the project bringing Linux to Apple Silicon. They've been using MIT-licensed code. That's as permissive as it gets. You can take it, modify it, re-distribute it. Even include it in proprietary products. Just need to give an attribution.
That's intentional. They wanted to make it super accessible. Easy to build on top of for downstream users / vendors. For adoption.
In their progress report, they talk about multiple attempts to abuse the permissiveness of their code to hijack their work. The goal is to actively replace them and aggressively monetise Linux on Apple Silicon. Sometimes it's just people taking their in-development feature code straight from personal forks and re-publishing it without attribution. Or sloppily rewriting it with LLM help to obfuscate source.
This is explicitly legal under MIT. There are no exceptions for bad actors.
So the Asahi conclusion is that those who fail to learn from history will be doomed to repeat it. They're gonna start moving all repos to GPLv2+. Strong copyleft. So derivatives must be published under the same licence.
Why the MIT licence could not protect them
MIT licence is a short document. It gives you a lot of rights. Use. Copy. Modify. Merge. Publish. Distribute. Sublicense. Sell. And it only has one obligation: keep the copyright notice. Keep the permission notice.
It doesn't say derivative works must be open. It doesn't say you must share changes. It doesn't say you can't use it commercially. You can't rebrand it. Can't remove attribution. (Aside from the notice requirement.)
That's what a permissive licence is. Maximises what people can do with your code. Including things you might not like.
The idea is that the cost of occasional abuse is outweighed by the benefit of widespread reuse.
But the Asahi story is a reminder that the cost might not be occasional. That the "bad actor" scenario they're assuming is rare could end up being a sustained attack. If you want to take their code. Rebrand it. Sell it. MIT licence doesn't stop that. It just slows you down a bit.
All it really requires is that you have to have a line of attribution. And attribution is the easiest thing to remove or obfuscate. (Especially with an LLM to rewrite code enough to make provenance hard to figure out.)
The LLM angle
The most important piece is the "sloppily rewriting it with LLM help to obfuscate its source" part. That's a new tool in the abuse box.
So let's be clear about what it adds and what it doesn't.
What it adds: harder to determine provenance after the fact. If the derived work is a straight copy, then you can see it's an attribution. Just compare it. If it's been paraphrased by the model. That's not trivial anymore. You're shifting the burden of proof onto the original author. To show that it's derived.
That's a costly burden. And it's something a small project can't realistically support.
What it doesn't add: it's still the same licence. You can't rewrite code with an LLM and have a new copyright that overrides the original. It's still a derived work. The original licence still applies to it. It's not a legal problem. It's an evidentiary problem. It's harder to prove it's derived. So harder to enforce. But the rights are the same.
This matters because the temptation is to think that LLM laundering is a new type of theft that's beyond the reach of existing law. It's not. It's just the same type of reuse that's always been possible with permissive licences. But made easier and harder to detect.
The solution isn't new law. It's to pick a licence that makes the abuse less attractive. That's what copyleft does.
Why GPLv2+ specifically
The choice to go GPLv2+ rather than GPLv3 or some more modern licence (Apache 2.0 for example) is deliberate. Worth looking at.
GPLv2 is what the Linux kernel itself uses. So by mirroring that, Asahi is ensuring that their code is licence compatible with the kernel. Which matters for a project whose whole point is to integrate with the kernel. If they went GPLv3 they'd have compatibility issues with GPLv2 code. And the anti-tivoization and patent stuff that the kernel community explicitly doesn't want. Apache 2.0 is more permissive. But doesn't help with the problem at all.
GPLv2+ has the "or later" clause. So downstream users can pick GPLv3 or any later version. That's a mild future-proofing step. But that's the usual pattern for projects that want copyleft but don't want to be tied to a specific version.
But the point is the copyleft thing. With GPLv2, you have to publish a derivative work under the same licence. It doesn't stop someone from taking your code and selling it. It still allows that. But they have to make the source available. And it stops them from just quietly including your code in proprietary products.
So the commercial incentive to rip and rebrand is much lower because you can't make it closed.
The cost of the switch
Copyleft isn't free. It's worth being honest about the cost.
Immediate cost is compatibility. You could include their MIT-licensed code in proprietary products. Embed it in closed source drivers. Use it in ways that GPLv2 code can't be used. So by switching to GPLv2+ you close off those uses.
For a project like Asahi, where the code is kernel adjacent and the primary users are kernel developers / distribution maintainers. That's a low cost.
But if you were a library that wanted to be embedded in commercial products. That's a high cost.
Second cost is community friction. You need consent from all the copyright holders to change the licence. Or rewrite the code (whose author you can't contact). Asahi has been careful about attributing things. They're describing it as a process rather than a flip switch. So it sounds like they're being good about the contributor consent thing. But for projects that aren't so careful about provenance. You might not be able to change licence at all.
Third cost is cultural. Permissive licensing is the default for new open source projects. Switching to copyleft might feel like a retreat or a sign of distrust in some communities. Asahi is clear that they're not saying anything about open source in general. They're making a decision about their code. In response to specific abuse.
That's the right framing. And one that others following them should adopt.
The broader lesson
Asahi's decision is one data point in a bigger pattern. With permissive licensing, the main risk was that people might not use your code.
But now the risk is different. The code is valuable enough that people want to steal it. The tools exist to launder it. And they're getting cheaper / better. And the enforcement cost for a small project is prohibitive.
Copyleft doesn't solve abuse. But it increases the cost. Changes the economics.
The LLM bit is just an accelerant. Not a new problem. It's always been possible to reuse code without attribution. But it's gotten easier to disguise it. If you have a licence that relies on verifying attribution. Then your protection is going to degrade as the disguise gets cheaper.
Copyleft changes the protection from "you must credit me" to "you must share alike". Which is easier to verify. Harder to launder.
Is this the beginning of a broader shift back to copyleft? It depends on how many projects bump up against the same wall as Asahi. And whether the community sees it as a legitimate response to abuse. Or a rejection of open source norms.
So far the trend seems to be that people are making this choice quietly and practically, rather than ideologically. Which is probably the best way for it to happen.
Sources
- Asahi Linux progress report 7.3 (Nov 2026): https://asahilinux.org/2026/11/progress-report-7-3/
- LWN, "Asahi Linux 7.3 progress report" (7 Nov 2026): https://lwn.net/Articles/1105936/
- MIT License text: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
- GNU General Public License v2: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html