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 5A0BFC7EE32 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uUk3B-00005Q-KI; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:41:50 -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 1uUk35-000056-5h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:41:43 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uUk33-00021p-8k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:41:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1750934497; 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=1LTOeEytEK6M6Zy+ARsHxMd7ptyZV4pEZRUH7CtLbSs=; b=ZA7OJgH+LuqW2emRbsRaQXqIBj3hNcU7ASJQSFuv5rCvd4f9/Y6BNsz3vyNLic4EF1Dgx6 elmF+rJZfrwv/KyI35tvBJR6EOHSHCfzumSed/qRlHMB2JZ3Ef8YIefd7WwMOU9L8xLfLJ /HOnVnJrpw/w0NkEC3FRboKOf6VEG2Y= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.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-159-lfjC3l3zPC2VpoJM2giw2A-1; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:41:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: lfjC3l3zPC2VpoJM2giw2A-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: lfjC3l3zPC2VpoJM2giw2A_1750934493 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (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-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32E8A1808984; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:41:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.10]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AC1730002C0; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C8CE621E6A27; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:41:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators In-Reply-To: <20250625155910-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message of "Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:01:55 -0400") References: <20250616092241.212898-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250616092241.212898-4-armbru@redhat.com> <20250625150941-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20250625155910-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:41:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87zfduwzs7.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 10.30.177.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_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 "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 08:46:54PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:16:52PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:22:41AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > > From: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >> > >=20 >> > > There has been an explosion of interest in so called AI code >> > > generators. Thus far though, this is has not been matched by a broad= ly >> > > accepted legal interpretation of the licensing implications for code >> > > generator outputs. While the vendors may claim there is no problem a= nd >> > > a free choice of license is possible, they have an inherent conflict >> > > of interest in promoting this interpretation. More broadly there is, >> > > as yet, no broad consensus on the licensing implications of code >> > > generators trained on inputs under a wide variety of licenses >> > >=20 >> > > The DCO requires contributors to assert they have the right to >> > > contribute under the designated project license. Given the lack of >> > > consensus on the licensing of AI code generator output, it is not >> > > considered credible to assert compliance with the DCO clause (b) or = (c) >> > > where a patch includes such generated code. >> > >=20 >> > > This patch thus defines a policy that the QEMU project will currently >> > > not accept contributions where use of AI code generators is either >> > > known, or suspected. >> > >=20 >> > > These are early days of AI-assisted software development. The legal >> > > questions will be resolved eventually. The tools will mature, and we >> > > can expect some to become safely usable in free software projects. >> > > The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to revision. It= 's >> > > best to start strict and safe, then relax. >> > >=20 >> > > Meanwhile requests for exceptions can also be considered on a case by >> > > case basis. >> > >=20 >> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >> > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf >> > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi >> > > Reviewed-by: Alex Benn=C3=A9e >> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> >=20 >> > Sorry about only reacting now, was AFK. >> >=20 >> > So one usecase that to me seems entirely valid, is refactoring. >> >=20 >> > For example, change a function prototype, or a structure, >> > and have an LLM update all callers. >> >=20 >> > The only part of the patch that is expressive is the >> > actual change, the rest is a technicality and has IMHO nothing to do w= ith >> > copyright. LLMs can just do it with no hassle. >>=20 >> Well the policy is defined in terms of requirements to comply with >> the DCO, and that implicitly indicates that the code in question >> is eligible for copyright protection to begin with. >>=20 >> IOW, if a change is such that it is not considered eligible for >> copyright protection, then you can take the view that it is trivially >> DCO compliant, whether you wrote the code, an arbitrary 3rd party >> wrote the code, or whether an AI wrote the code.=20 > > Exactly. I agree! However the patch states: > > +The QEMU project thus requires that contributors refrain from using AI c= ontent > +generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project, and will > +decline any contribution if use of AI is either known or suspected. > > and makes no exception for non copyrighteable parts of the patch. > > Or do I misunderstand? > >> > Can we soften this to only apply to expressive code? >> >=20 >> > I feel a lot of cleanups would be enabled by this. >>=20 >> Trying to detail every possible scenario is impractical and would >> make the document too onerous for people to read, remember & apply. >> It is better to leave it up to the contributor to decide whether a >> change is non-copyrightable, than to try to draw that line crudely >> in text. Even for refactoring that line will be fuzzy and contextual, >> so not a scenario where we should say any use of AI for reactoring >> is OK, as that will lull contributors into having a false sense of >> acceptibility, rather than being aware of need to question it.=20 > > Agree again! What worries me is that the patch as posted here does > not make contributors question anything. It just flatly forbids using "AI > content generators". Only if you stop reading before the last paragraph :) I agree with Daniel that trying to legislate exceptions is not going to work. Instead, we put in this: This policy may evolve as AI tools mature and the legal situation is clarifed. In the meanwhile, requests for exceptions to this policy will= be evaluated by the QEMU project on a case by case basis. To be granted an exception, a contributor will need to demonstrate clarity of the licens= e and copyright status for the tool's output in relation to its training mode= l and code, to the satisfaction of the project maintainers. Last paragraph, i.e. a fairly prominent spot. If you can make a convinving case that the tool's output is not copyrightable, I like your chances of being granted an exception. As always, if you think doc text is insufficiently clear, let's work on improving it.