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 lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.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 B9EDACD6E74 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wVRsX-00007y-VB; Fri, 05 Jun 2026 06:34:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wVRsW-00007m-4R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2026 06:34:16 -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 1wVRsT-0000A2-W9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2026 06:34:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1780655652; h=from:from:reply-to: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=xqOPEas5ijOLkNQHxsCtu4X6Mtq71bGoq4OkAgS4Yw8=; b=LH2xCELYyjlIYy1lBDwHGucDIn3L3Jkr92XS8j2w/ua86uhc+cl/YgMmENS3c3krKdKtRj otn1nbj5mxIAkyYAB4HqZXKPJWx51TzJc7VJcE09lohO0RbUQckIMKa3nujl80uV6WmOhj yq45XkWodz+2be1heQdN4bzN/X8xiFg= 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-490-avy0qf3QMBC24TbQXMAe8g-1; Fri, 05 Jun 2026 06:34:08 -0400 X-MC-Unique: avy0qf3QMBC24TbQXMAe8g-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: avy0qf3QMBC24TbQXMAe8g_1780655647 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-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A8901800361; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:34:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.44.50.34]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 973F33000210; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 11:34:00 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Alistair Francis , BALATON Zoltan , Fabiano Rosas , Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Warner Losh , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions Message-ID: References: <20260605051949-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260605054212-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260605062540-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260605062540-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.3.2 (2026-04-26) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.445, 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 06:28:31AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 11:23:54AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 05:48:37AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 10:39:15AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 05:25:36AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 10:17:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 12:37:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > > Il mer 3 giu 2026, 19:54 Daniel P. Berrangé ha > > > > > > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The AI policy should just > > > > > > > > make a point that we expect to be communicating with people not > > > > > > > > bots pretending to be people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's better to have that stated clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True but we also need a rule. The spirit is better explained elsewhere > > > > > > > > > (and also, building consensus on spirit vs. a rule are two different > > > > > > > > > things). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have a better elsewhere in this case ? It is a point specifically > > > > > > > > about intent of the AI policy rule. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rule in this draft says 20 lines, tests, mechanical changes and docs. > > > > > > > The spirit is what is in the commit message, basically to maximize the > > > > > > > benefit and limit the possible damage? > > > > > > > > > > > > Putting "the spirit" in the commit message is essentially /dev/null to > > > > > > anyone reading the policy later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See my reply to Peter elsewhere in the thread. I agree with your > > > > > > > > > concerns for both docs and discretion, but I had specific uses in mind > > > > > > > > > that I'd like to allow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For docs: > > > > > > > > > - create tutorials and/or feature documentation based on functional tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't sound too appealing to me. Reverse engineering docs or > > > > > > > > tutorials from our functional tests is exactly the kind of thing that feels > > > > > > > > likely to result in volumous text of marginal value which will have a large > > > > > > > > burden on reviewers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time this can be helpful for maintainers themselves? Let's also > > > > > > > look at this from the point of view of producing better output, not just > > > > > > > from that of being on the receiving end of slop. Especially for docs I have > > > > > > > a hard time imagining people sending out whole new "manuals"... The > > > > > > > bugfixes rule ironically seems the most dangerous to me from the > > > > > > > Dunning-Krueger point of view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is: do we want disclosure for anything is created with the help > > > > > > > of LLMs, even if only small parts survive untouched? I think so, because a > > > > > > > lot more, even if edited, would still be originally from AI. But then it's > > > > > > > important to have rules allowing it and a way to track it. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO need unconditional disclosure, because the use of the LLM impacts > > > > > > the license of the code. QEMU is traditionally expected to be GPLv2+ > > > > > > licensed for all new code, but there's the train of thought that LLM > > > > > > code is public domain. > > > > > > If it gets human editting afterwards we can > > > > > > consider that the human edits are GPLv2+ licensed, but IMHO we still > > > > > > want to know the origins. > > > > > > > > > > Wait that's a big ask. > > > > > > > > > > DOC explicitly does not ask if code might be available anywhere else > > > > > under any other license. Just that contributor can contribute under GPL. > > > > > If it's public domain then the human can license is under GPL. > > > > > > > > For new files, in checkpatch we validate that SPDX-License-Identifier > > > > is explicitly set as GPL-2.0-or-later. Contributors are expected to > > > > justify any divergence in the commit message. > > > > > > > > I've seen guidance that SPDX-License-Identifier for AI output code > > > > should NOT state a license, under the theory it is public domain. > > > > > > Not state a license? Recommended by a lawyer? Seen where? Why? > > > > https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/ai-assisted-development-and-open-source-navigating-legal-issues > > > > "The harder case is when an entire source file, or even > > an entire repository, is generated by AI. Here, adding > > a copyright and license notice may be inappropriate > > unless and until human contributions transform the file > > into a copyrightable work. " > > > > I interpret that to suggest we should not automatically use > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later on LLM generated > > code, unless subsequent human editting was non-trivial. > > > > Ultimately QEMU is a copyleft project as a whole and IMHO we should > > > > prioritize retaining that for as large a portion of the codebase is > > > > is practical. > > > > > > But of course. We can make this explicit too: that > > > contributing it should be under GPL and/or implies licensing it under GPL. > > > > The subtlety is that generally when changing an existing file, you assume > > the edits are under the same licence as the initial code being editted. > > > > If the initial code is LLM generated & thus presumed public domain, it > > might be inferred that human edits are public domain too. I don't think > > we want to have that interpretation and should be explicit that human > > edits to LLM code in code are assumed to be GPL-2.0-or-later licensed > > unless explicitly stated to the contrary. > > Oh intresting! Thanks! So maybe we should decline whole new files > for now unless it's a reorg of existing code so it inherits SPDX. I think the "new file" case is probably relevant for Paolo's example though of using an LLM for some Rust boilerplate, and then editting afterwards. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|