Post #4227262

2026-07-29 20:33 UTC

@ubernostrum@infosec.exchange One of their points is that the contributor must own the code they contribute (i.e., have copyright over it), and they rightly point out that machine-generated code cannot be copyrighted.

Replies (2)

@hyc@mastodon.social 2026-07-29 21:01

@clayfoot@mastodon.social @ubernostrum@infosec.exchange yep, same reason we refuse AI submissions in OpenLDAP. Other reasons might be debatable, but this is clear cut. https://mastodon.social/@hyc/114495011139229120

Open ##4228365
@fred@social.fthevenet.eu 2026-07-30 07:26

@clayfoot@mastodon.social @ubernostrum@infosec.exchange they rightly point out that machine-generated code cannot be copyrighted That's not quite the issue here. The reason Oracle requires contributors to own the rights to code they contribute is so that they are in a position where they can grant co-ownership to Oracle, by signing a legal agreement (the "OCA"). The worry is that an LLM may regurgitate from its training material verbatim portions of a work copyrighted by a third party, that the contributor has no ownership over -- and therefore cannot transfer to Oracle, nor guarantee compatibility with the GPL.

Open ##4251864