qui 28 mai 2026 às 17:54:14 (1780001654), [email protected] enviou: > Hi, > > On 2026-05-25 at 21:31:28+02:00, André Batista wrote: > > 5. Patches that were produced with Assistive technologies > > MAY be accepted by Commiters only on the 'gnu/packages' > > sub-hierarchy, at their discretion. > > 6. Users proposing patches with the use of Assistive Technologies > > assume complete and sole responsibility to any copyright, > > license or patent claims that third parties may hold to it. > > Reviewers and Committers are not expected to clear > > the legal situation on behalf of those proposing them > > and their acceptance of any given patch MUST NEVER be interpreted > > as legal aval. > > Blaming the contributor would not free the project from the liability > of distributing infringements and their future derivations. I fail > to notice the difference between the project being aware of a non-zero > chance of infringement and defer the reposibility on the contributor, > and the contributor being aware of the same infringement > and defer such reponsibility to the SaaSS provider. >
This is definetly what I'm hinting at, though I may be wrong. I think any sane juridical system would recognize that a non for profit organization with limited resources which works for the public and accepts contributions from volunteers around the globe cannot possibly be held responsible for clearing the copyright claims of all works that are offered and can be assumed to be working in good faith when accepting patches without checking. Otherwise their (our) volunteer work for the public might become impossible to pursue. So it's only fair that the project does not assume responsibility for this task and lays it on the shoulders of those proposing them. The situation might be less clear for people with official ties with the project (names on team files, commit rights or such). For their actions there is a more substantial reason for holding the project liable, since they act on a more official incumbence. The waters can also become more troubled if the project, though not explicitly required, starts, by their own decision, to actively verify the copyright situation of patches and upstream projects. Then the courts may conclude that the project voluntarily assumed this incumbency and so we could be held responsible for the violations that we let happen. By the same token, it would be also unreasonable to held individual consumers responsible for checking the copyright situation on behalf of the for profit enterprise that is offering such services to the public without disclosing any info whatsoever on this topic. It was the company that developed, trained and decided to offer this as a service without warning that what they provide cannot be used freely, so they are the ones primarily responsible for the infringements they induce others to cause. The situation may be different if the company can prove that the user abused their system by explicitly asking for the contents of copyrighted material. > > (...) > > There is practically zero inclusion of LLM output in Guix codebase. > Attempts to introduce legal, technical, and moral risks, etc. > to the project should preach for acceptance, not the other way around. > Acceptance? Not sure if I understood this last sentence. Cheers!
