Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] SubmittingPatches: allow responsible AI assistance

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Date: Oct 8, 2026, 05:53 UTC
Message-ID: <a54e82eb-1252-4d6b-8b4c-6e99da59252d@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP2yMa+kgphMe-cpcZSvPSqwm-npUDVp=HaNRW+MPmPzZ_aOXw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 8, 2026, at 06:49, Scott Chacon wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 11:42 PM brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
>>[snip]
>
> I agree that generated output can reproduce material we don't have
> permission to distribute (though I think this is incredibly rare for
> anything complex). What I question is whether that possibility means
> knowing every source in the training set is necessary to make any DCO
> certification.
>
> Human contributors have also read code under many different licenses
> (and news articles and blogs) . We don't ask them to account for
> everything they've ever read before signing off on a patch.

Metaphors gone amok. You don’t regulate how submarines and human bodies can operate in territorial waters based on the fact that they both swim.[1]

Corporations already have non-compete clauses in order to keep knowledge workers from applying their braincraft to competing businesses.

Show 16 quoted lines

>[snip]
>
>> I'm a distributor of Git and I don't want to be sued or arrested because
>> I end up distributing code that I don't have the right to distribute.
>>[snip]
>
>[snip]
>
>>[snip]
>
> I'm not saying that other projects haven't taken positions as
> conservative as Git's current policy. I'm saying that much larger
> projects with much larger legal surface area such as Linux have
> adopted more progressive ones. Linus is fine with it on a project with
> the same DCO, the same license, and honestly, a lot more legal
> scrutiny.

Honestly, if an individual wants to avoid the risk of getting sued over copyright then that’s their prerogative.

>[snip]

[1] I’m not a lawyer so maybe one does.