> However, proving the negative, i.e. the code is not copyrighted is almost impossible.

Nonsense, it's trivially easy if you wrote the code yourself. You hold the copyright.

If you had some LLM puke out the code for you, well, then you have no idea. So you can't contribute that puke.

Did you read my comment? I was specifically talking about publishing LLM generated code:

> I am responsible for ensuring copyright has not been violated with LLM generated code I publish

Your comment:

> If you had some LLM puke out the code for you, well, then you have no idea. So you can't contribute that puke.

That's not true. You can if it's not violating copyright. That "puke" as you put it comes in many flavours.