[streetfighter64]

Yeah, but that's not a useful thing to do because not everybody thinks about that or considers it a problem. If somebody's careless and contributes copyrighted code, that's a problem for linux too, not only the author.

For comparison, you wouldn't say, "you're free to use a pair of dice to decide what material to build the bridge out of, as long as you take responsibility if it falls down", because then of course somebody would be careless enough to build a bridge that falls down.

Preventing the problem from the beginning is better than ensuring you have somebody to blame for the problem when it happens.

[philipov]

It was already necessary to solve the problem of humans contributing infringing code. It was solved by having contributors assume liability with a DCO. The policy being discussed today asserts that, because AI may not be held legally liable for its contributions, AI may not sign a DCO. A human signature is required. This puts the situation back to what it was with human contributors. What you are proposing goes beyond maintaining the status quo.

[sarchertech]

It’s not solved. It hasn’t been tested in court to my knowledge and in my opinion is unlikely to hold up to serious challenge. You can be held liable for just distributing copyrighted code even if the whole “the Linux foundation doesn’t own anything” holds up.

[jcelerier]

> Preventing the problem from the beginning is better than ensuring you have somebody to blame for the problem when it happens.

that's assuming that the problems and incentives are the same for everyone. Someone whose uncle happens to own a bridge repair company would absolutely be incentivized to say

> "you're free to use a pair of dice to decide what material to build the bridge out of, as long as you take responsibility if it falls down"

[streetfighter64]

Sorry, what's that got to do with anything? Who's the uncle supposed to be here in your analogy? The copyright owner? And so your hypothesis is that somebody's pushing AI in order to sneak copyrighted code into linux in order to sue them later? Seems very far fetched, and besides, why would I care about their incentives? Why would the linux foundation be interested in allowing that to happen?