Comment by tremon
4 months ago
Can we name the operator of the AI Agent, please? Do we even know who pays the inference and/or electricity bills? We need more accountability for those who operate bots.
Apart from the accountability part, knowing the operator is essential for FLOSS copyright management. Accepting patches of unknown provenance in your project means opening yourself up to potential lawsuits if it turns out the person submitting the patch (i.e. the operator in this case) didn't own the copyright in the first place.
>Apart from the accountability part, knowing the operator is essential for FLOSS copyright management. Accepting patches of unknown provenance in your project means opening yourself up to potential lawsuits if it turns out the person submitting the patch (i.e. the operator in this case) didn't own the copyright in the first place.
so then dont accept PRs from random humans either? or is it anti-ai bias?
Yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_Certificate_of_Origi...
> a DCO is an affirmation that a certain person confirms that it is (s)he who holds legal liability for the act of sending of the code
has this ever been tested in court? ie you can release copyright code and just let them sue the developer instead? Linux foundation or whoever claims ownership of the code basically unless they get sued for it breaching copyright, in which case speak to the developer cos its his again!