I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
-
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum I want to boost this but I'm worried that some other faction _within_ oracle will find out and kill this policy
-
@ubernostrum I want to boost this but I'm worried that some other faction _within_ oracle will find out and kill this policy
@glyph As a law firm that dabbles occasionally in software, I think Oracle's legal team is likely to win whatever arguments that generates.
-
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum We in Java land will be truly f*cked if they would allow this.
-
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum 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.
-
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum well, dealers should never consume, savvy?
-
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum needed a laugh. thank you
-
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum
java? mmmmh -
@ubernostrum 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.
@clayfoot @ubernostrum yep, same reason we refuse AI submissions in OpenLDAP. Other reasons might be debatable, but this is clear cut. https://mastodon.social/@hyc/114495011139229120
-
@glyph As a law firm that dabbles occasionally in software, I think Oracle's legal team is likely to win whatever arguments that generates.
And considering that LLM-generated code is a copyright nightmare, I can see why would the lawyers uphold that policy, just in case -
I just learned that Oracle, which is shoveling unbelievable amounts of cash into getting everybody to use LLMs, also has a policy forbidding contributors to OpenJDK from using LLMs to generate code, citing code quality, security, and legal concerns:
@ubernostrum wait, OpenJDK is an oracle thing?
-
@ubernostrum wait, OpenJDK is an oracle thing?
@freya @ubernostrum Java was originally developed by SUN Microsystems and OpenJDK is also from that time.
Oracle bought SUN and they got OpenJDK that way.
-
@freya @ubernostrum Java was originally developed by SUN Microsystems and OpenJDK is also from that time.
Oracle bought SUN and they got OpenJDK that way.
@anzah @ubernostrum yes, but Oracle doesn't, afaik, own OpenJDK?
-
@freya @ubernostrum Java was originally developed by SUN Microsystems and OpenJDK is also from that time.
Oracle bought SUN and they got OpenJDK that way.
@anzah @ubernostrum no, Oracle murdered Sun adn they got SunJDK, but OpenJDK forked off?
-
@anzah @ubernostrum yes, but Oracle doesn't, afaik, own OpenJDK?
https://openjdk.org/guide/#contributing-to-an-openjdk-project
“Oracle is the steward of OpenJDK and if you haven’t yet signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA), and are not covered by a company-level agreement, then please do so. This is required in order to make your patch available for review.”
-
https://openjdk.org/guide/#contributing-to-an-openjdk-project
“Oracle is the steward of OpenJDK and if you haven’t yet signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA), and are not covered by a company-level agreement, then please do so. This is required in order to make your patch available for review.”
@ubernostrum @anzah oh for fuck sake....
-
@freya @ubernostrum Java was originally developed by SUN Microsystems and OpenJDK is also from that time.
Oracle bought SUN and they got OpenJDK that way.
All ancient history now, but some of us lived through it
-
All ancient history now, but some of us lived through it
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @anzah @ubernostrum this precious girl I am logged into right now is actively living through it
-
@ubernostrum wait, OpenJDK is an oracle thing?
@freya @ubernostrum they are a sponsor of the project with large influence, but does not make all the decisions . AFAIK they did not propose that ban. here is the announcement explaining oracle might later propose a new policy on llm use
https://mail.openjdk.org/archives/list/announce@openjdk.org/thread/NPTV4NGSIN2IOMVESWUVN7Y3ERMUBKH2/
-
@ubernostrum 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.
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 it Oracle, nor ensure compatibility with the GPL. -
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 it Oracle, nor ensure compatibility with the GPL.@clayfoot @ubernostrum But the overwhelming concern for the projects 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", a.k.a. slop.
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.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
