From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com (mail-wm1-f50.google.com [209.85.128.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25A0A3AEB5F for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2026 05:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.50 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791437403; cv=none; b=PH0XQrb1rtxmtVJtI5JRHs/dx1X57jb5rpzclziTB+g41Wd1PTCFFLhhwyJCwJlJ7hG24RNOWCaQYdPU8x23VricZ0nXRfsMxz+lt9t8heHcq9ElH54ZkaUtUY5gjdt+yy+PT8Q6mIchVfSWJWGJYFaMbMmqX4Q4H4ek5GItOFI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791437403; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ltrpQIzXwLYNCdP3gjaQRDkEveFX4aXAR2xRYQlA6UA=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=dS9IkK6/Shc8TtJNIbjpNbUGjdRxTKhoYJvtg+GbfXWvPngVTT+lRCAgRlGbkSOq1A5+Wj4ndbl8YCilYyhw/xLuUw0x8DYcCZOUos8G2/wGl2GpKjHr5pjs0/rujqCxAAx7nEVIDTABA1ft3eHSEz4RpVhU4/jeol/Exx2y904= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=HANk1tOC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.50 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HANk1tOC" Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a16c399641so25345175e9.2 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 22:30:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1791437400; x=1792042200; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=yY96u+qWgA1Q8SaDCpla46zxUANUQTmCAw2hxdybKRM=; b=HANk1tOCtwmRmPHezzIPVV0LW8TqA9CuftznL+/DI43sHvMuFUtC5kFYI4muVN/zGM f4kC+iD7DYL2g7mxAY2lZZICBDm7UF2Ie6X/rGc98gbEzi+TmIV9GyISzNXtYzCrA/vZ 7EEKN1KamD+fjpNZDj4ta+eNrDnZAHXJVTVvlhQo3h6c3/z6S6f8+nbci6/MY2FqhUDr yhkxS3YHS0AuaT4pXP8JHWRqveF+ndZkj7HSQnsOZ2Ln0k8+A0WvDDqBANvyg04Wg9Wp 6jKvPkDfcmD26P+QV7jj6j4fIiWk1JU6GH9gxriLzx4hF0BM3NyBUaX6vqlPy6fSKOjF wkRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791437400; x=1792042200; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=yY96u+qWgA1Q8SaDCpla46zxUANUQTmCAw2hxdybKRM=; b=nOBGo2XBZhstYgaEvtEEgWvwOVW78Ulgd1FJqtyPOS3bcy8slgq87SXizlTzruKe6X YapIaHyHXGB/PklGpiKEODT5UopyRCCCynR05jDdHQe5m0cte0eNixIuH3qrt1io+ftC piyikRNRl/fndEYZpxnGPVpMpqu4pUu/faNPTNdtclZxu0VaRIVkD8/vnsokaaVwaDdO a+C/VBxtekRbEuYmBcpiTURicZY7HUTmHD5PRZT7ytYjpHR0sDiokqcLVBrjTvelSxVz 4l1DXq7P9ohOGcg03FkthIA3B5UAK+f40BmecAlgvuG58hDAVGfMvbTnGSC8YmBkzvfJ E4Kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++mWm7JaqTdTT1vDCcBO0Rrb0vVRWBf3wNNFE0BGR/Q+mn9Ko4RB 1ekT6x9QnC4eZy2FdLG2GzLH6Zd8IODdQvC342zTW15XVVTI2pezqVcT8Brf60RK X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0wrVXgmIzEkAED85x13hfXL/wVRxXYB/0cOrsEZ7QgCWk5pmYr13rREvEOnpb exk1X3Mz6IHib4KdKR3X14IwB8dqhfdB30bqKgbGw0YJkX0fDJa/INSibm/6bfEAxa7dahsLXkN e0NJWvK+d0g7mins99hX4bR+Ro+gRKsOQQOHe56dvbpQftQMa69XzRtY9matYon+sGBX2p+7Uxg omOWvavp/evQ0l5w3kES6jbWDqWa5sRPr9fXcYEk9ZjLglu6hNWEquhdJn+9UAvvJjyqVf2OUyt qKiwr83oGf6Qxv46n1wDZJBaFGo99+0Lgi4wbijJgc1RwxOE7eK4i1uh+izYE+TOg7XgigOu2Wr sFg7oLi9SxlPz8Np5CUcqxDxp0BneL5HsSzPgCEZ1bm8p0Vre8R6jL4hoOffruyMKZ5BOZmN29+ lT0yY1SgX7M1z2zOmYK1Esq/SQNd+M1W4V8DR9c+VmhS4ZLFKLYKLwyVOELya7/paVjAwRcQpq+ 7LeShsVGgeR7PM9rGDG0yfASyvCR/KS2JCu6oCMje56jMgwZdM9+73int8aB0QC4sSF X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:6099:b0:4a0:1fb9:2f51 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a18043be70mr74932785e9.14.1791437399854; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 22:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2a00:23c7:890d:5f01:a00c:eb10:a843:dbd8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-48c7273b5e0sm8975582f8f.14.2026.10.07.22.29.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2026 22:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.500.181\)) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] SubmittingPatches: allow responsible AI assistance From: Luca Milanesio In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2026 06:29:48 +0100 Cc: Luca Milanesio Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6CCE2DB2-E2E2-48A0-B443-95B0AABFE83B@gmail.com> References: <20261007142954.31761-1-scott@gitbutler.net> <20261007142954.31761-2-scott@gitbutler.net> To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.500.181) > On 8 Oct 2026, at 05:49, Scott Chacon wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 11:42=E2=80=AFPM brian m. carlson > wrote: >>=20 >> On 2026-10-07 at 14:29:54, Scott Chacon wrote: >> I don't think I'm in favour of this policy. All the major models = have >> been trained on a large variety of code from a large variety of = sources, >> including sources such as news reports or personal websites that do = not >> allow copying, modification, or distribution. Given that LLMs are = known >> to reproduce portions of their training set or craft code or text = which >> is very similar to items in the training set, how can anyone honestly >> assert the DCO without knowing all of the sources that were used to >> create it? >=20 > I agree that generated output can reproduce material we don't have > permission to distribute (though I think this is incredibly rare for > anything complex). What I question is whether that possibility means > knowing every source in the training set is necessary to make any DCO > certification. >=20 > Human contributors have also read code under many different licenses > (and news articles and blogs) . We don't ask them to account for > everything they've ever read before signing off on a patch. There is a difference between =E2=80=9Clearning from existing code=E2=80=9D= which builds up experience and professional capability and =E2=80=9Ccopy & pasting=E2=80=9D= code from different sources and putting it together. The first (learning from existing code) is a product of whoever writes = the code, based on its mental model and experience developed, the second is = a simple violation of the contribution guidelines. Where AI stays? LLMs are a simple processing of a large amount of code for statistically detecting which part of the copy need to be = copy&pasted and blended together. Even though they had a =E2=80=9Clearning=E2=80=9D = path in terms of developing an understanding and building a mental model (they don=E2=80=99= t, at least at the moment), *THEY* would be the author of the code, not the person that just =E2=80=9Cpressed the button=E2=80=9D on the AI model. Should we use fully-generated AI contributions? When = =E2=80=9Cfully-generated=E2=80=9D means code that has been totally written and reviewed by agents = autonomously, then I believe the answer should be a sound no, even just for the lack of a legal framework around it on who is taking the responsibility of what has been contributed. > We do > expect them to have the right to submit the actual contribution and to > respect the licenses of material they incorporate. Again, Red Hat, the > Linux Foundation and the SFC all now state that LLM generated code is > acceptable and compatible with DCO requirements. Do you have a link to their exact statement? Do they really allow *fully AI generated* code contributions where the human has no understanding of the lines of code generated? If that was the case, how can you manage a review of code that wasn=E2=80=99= t fully guided and understood by the author? Are you foreseeing an agent answering the mailing list to the comments of the reviewers? Even though we would allow *fully* AI-generated code, who is really the contribution from? The =E2=80=9Cassumed human author=E2=80=9D? The = LLM? The data that LLM is trained on? The company that developed the LLM? Nobody? Also, imagine that the code generated *did contain* malicious backdoors, who is liable for it? There are currently lawsuit in progress against companies that have trained LLMs on allegedly copyrighted material, we don=E2=80=99t know = yet where they=E2=80=99ll end up to. >=20 >> I'm a distributor of Git and I don't want to be sued or arrested = because >> I end up distributing code that I don't have the right to distribute. >> Large companies may have lawyers and lots of money to fight those >> claims, but I do not (nor does the Git project) and I don't want to >> spend my resources fighting allegations of copyright infringement or >> have my reputation besmirched for that reason. Just because other >> projects think it's okay to do legally and ethically questionable = things >> doesn't mean we should as well. >=20 > Again, a lot of my argumentation here was directly taken from the > SFC's recommendations [1], which Git is a member project of. >=20 > = https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendati= ons.html I am fully aligned and in agreement with SFC=E2=80=99s recommendations, = which is very much aligned with my thinking. If you are the author of the code, even if was created with the = assistance of=20 of LLMs, then you are fully responsible for each and every line of it = and you must understand it and approve it yourself. I personally use LLMs *a lot* for giving me ideas and reviewing my code or learning about something new that I never explored before. The end = goal of LLMs for me is to improve my capabilities as a developer, not to = generate contributions on my behalf. My success criteria after having used LLMs is: I am a better developer = now? Am I more capable of writing better software and having a deeper = understanding of=20 existing code? P.S. My comment was 100% human-generated, including spelling mistakes and awkward expressions (I=E2=80=99m not mother tongue). Luca. >=20 >> I'll add that if Git were to include a portion of my MIT- or >> BSD-licensed code without including a copyright or permission notice >> because it was laundered through an LLM, I would absolutely file a >> copyright complaint, and rightfully so. >>=20 >> I refer you to policies from other major open source projects that = cover >> this exact provenance issue: >>=20 >> * Gentoo: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy >> * NetBSD: https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html >=20 > I'm not saying that other projects haven't taken positions as > conservative as Git's current policy. I'm saying that much larger > projects with much larger legal surface area such as Linux have > adopted more progressive ones. Linus is fine with it on a project with > the same DCO, the same license, and honestly, a lot more legal > scrutiny. >=20 >> I also will point out the notes from the Contributor Summit where we >> discussed this issue in some depth and proposed an approach for = further >> discussion. >=20 > It was unclear from the notes what a "vote" meant exactly. It looked > like Taylor was roughly tasked with providing a Linux-style position, > so I thought I would help out by providing a first version of that > position. >=20 > This was written to follow the current SFC guidelines. I would > encourage Junio to have them read it, but I tried my best to follow > it's guidelines and advice. >=20 > Scott >=20