From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65EF9C5B543 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMk3R-0003NV-NV; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:05:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMk3P-0003Ll-LQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:04:59 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMk3N-0003i0-Jt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:04:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1749027895; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yGoXpcJDVMX/dHNrgPa0VRVmXtmsN3U496WC91nwsMs=; b=RM0avALfbd12VXEAO8gxqnFQXda1FzBWsnYkmoB3NurxHhYb9jDMBFCOlaUcwI9eV/2SLH uLVau/dsfn6YvMQOLwK4ybkIRsk4+z+kM3TXNkZn1NpwPJG/YVC6WDh38vsYAoCUkikWiR +i2rsjsZfClYenr5+soKjEiLSEyGX3I= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-694-cg0BCFnhOzKqk9yvqNIWJw-1; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:04:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: cg0BCFnhOzKqk9yvqNIWJw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: cg0BCFnhOzKqk9yvqNIWJw_1749027891 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538C11800361; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.38]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0644A180045B; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CE0621E66C3; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:04:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Cc: Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?= , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Peter Maydell , Pierrick Bouvier Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators In-Reply-To: <3df2ae5d-c1c6-45ee-8119-ca42e17a0d98@linaro.org> ("Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:54:33 +0200") References: <20250603142524.4043193-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250603142524.4043193-4-armbru@redhat.com> <87a56o1154.fsf@pond.sub.org> <3df2ae5d-c1c6-45ee-8119-ca42e17a0d98@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:04:47 +0200 Message-ID: <8734cfyj0w.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.128, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 writes: > On 4/6/25 09:15, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 08:17:27AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Stefan Hajnoczi writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:25=E2=80=AFAM Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >>>>> +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but no= t limited >>>> >>>> More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding >>>> assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic code >>>> generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatGPT >>>> or Gemini as a chatbot that can people use like Stackoverflow or an >>>> API documentation summarizer. >>>> >>>> I think the intent is to say: do not put code that comes from _any_ AI >>>> tool into QEMU. >>>> >>>> It would be okay to use AI to research APIs, algorithms, brainstorm >>>> ideas, debug the code, analyze the code, etc but the actual code >>>> changes must not be generated by AI. >>=20 >> The scope of the policy is around contributions we receive as >> patches with SoB. Researching / brainstorming / analysis etc >> are not contribution activities, so not covered by the policy >> IMHO. >>=20 >>> >>> The existing text is about "AI code generators". However, the "most >>> notably LLMs" that follows it could lead readers to believe it's about >>> more than just code generation, because LLMs are in fact used for more. >>> I figure this is your concern. >>> >>> We could instead start wide, then narrow the focus to code generation. >>> Here's my try: >>> >>> The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development results >>> in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software >>> projects, including QEMU. Of particular concern is code generated by >>> `Large Language Models >>> `__ (LLMs). >>=20 >> Documentation we maintain has the same concerns as code. >> So I'd suggest to substitute 'code' with 'code / content'. > > Why couldn't we accept documentation patches improved using LLM? > > As a non-native English speaker being often stuck trying to describe > function APIs, I'm very tempted to use a LLM to review my sentences > and make them better understandable. I understand the temptation! Unfortunately, the "legal questions and risks" Daniel described apply to *any* kind of copyrightable material, not just to code. Quote: To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand the copyright and license status of code they are contributing to QEMU. Wit= h AI code generators, the copyright and license status of the output is ill-= defined with no generally accepted, settled legal foundation. Where the training material is known, it is common for it to include la= rge volumes of material under restrictive licensing/copyright terms. Even w= here the training material is all known to be under open source licenses, it= is likely to be under a variety of terms, not all of which will be compati= ble with QEMU's licensing requirements. How contributors could comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for the output = of AI code generators commonly available today is unclear. The QEMU project = is not willing or able to accept the legal risks of non-compliance. [...]