From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2026 05:53:09 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] SubmittingPatches: allow responsible AI assistance Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Thu, Oct 8, 2026, at 06:49, Scott Chacon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 11:42 PM brian m. carlson > 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. >[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.