Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 05:22:30PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> There has been an explosion of interest in so called AI code generators
> in the past year or two. Thus far though, this is has not been matched
> by a broadly accepted legal interpretation of the licensing implications
> for code generator outputs. While the vendors may claim there is no
> problem and 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> This merely reflects the current uncertainty of the field, and should
> this situation change, the policy is of course subject to future
> relaxation. Meanwhile requests for exceptions can also be considered on
> a case by case basis.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> index eabb3e7c08..846dda9a35 100644
> --- a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> @@ -264,4 +264,52 @@ boilerplate code template which is then filled in to produce the final patch.
>  The output of such a tool would still be considered the "preferred format",
>  since it is intended to be a foundation for further human authored changes.
>  Such tools are acceptable to use, provided they follow a deterministic process
> -and there is clearly defined copyright and licensing for their output.
> +and there is clearly defined copyright and licensing for their output. Note
> +in particular the caveats applying to AI code generators below.
> +
> +Use of AI code generators
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +TL;DR:
> +
> +  **Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions which are
> +  believed to include or derive from AI generated code. This includes ChatGPT,
> +  CoPilot, Llama and similar tools**
> +
> +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but not limited
> +to, `Large Language Models <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__
> +(LLMs) results in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software
> +projects, including QEMU.
> +
> +The QEMU community requires that contributors certify their patch submissions
> +are made in accordance with the rules of the :ref:`dco` (DCO).
> +
> +To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand the
> +copyright and license status of code they are contributing to QEMU. With 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 large
> +volumes of material under restrictive licensing/copyright terms. Even where
> +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 compatible
> +with QEMU's licensing requirements.
> +
> +With this in mind, the QEMU project does not consider it is currently possible
> +for contributors to comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for the output of commonly
> +available AI code generators.
> +
> +The QEMU maintainers thus require that contributors refrain from using AI code
> +generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project, and will
> +decline any contribution if use of AI is either known or suspected.
> +
> +Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub's CoPilot,
> +OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Meta's Code Llama, amongst many others which are less
> +well known.
> +
> +This policy may evolve as 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 license and copyright status for the tool's
> +output in relation to its training model and code, to the satisfaction of the
> +project maintainers.

I would definitely want more contributors to pass their
comments and commit logs though a grammar checker.
It's unclear to me whether the contributors would
be required to know whether the checker in question is
considered "AI" or not.




> -- 
> 2.43.0