Post #4251864
2026-07-30 07:26 UTC
@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.
Replies (1)
-
@fred@social.fthevenet.eu 2026-07-30 07:39
@clayfoot@mastodon.social @ubernostrum@infosec.exchange But the overwhelming concern for the project's maintainers is that they don't want to get drowned in PRs full of "plausible-looking code, with plausible-looking tests, which is nonetheless incorrect or, even if it is correct, is poorly designed and therefore difficult to maintain". Slop, by another name. OpenJDK has a very thorough reviewing process for contributions, which ensures a very high degree of quality, but puts a large burden on reviewers. This makes the project particularly vulnerable to being drowned under a wave of LLM-fuelled garbage contributions.