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 4957CC61DF4 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 10:45:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6Tgk-0002mi-05; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 05:45:34 -0500 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 1r6Tgi-0002m4-Ph for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 05:45:32 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6Tgg-0005Kz-M5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 05:45:32 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-332e42469f0so865043f8f.1 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 02:45:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1700822728; x=1701427528; darn=nongnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+JqoKFgiwFxpw1knhALGKhQFjoVEMUmZ/BZGjk7bF7Q=; b=i6Kf+zLcmGID7YtqbsfB2oY6sNydiMCiosJYa6+MCT9P1xVar+E11mN4MiAjIpEiAu YLQ1ObVyBCycf9vr5tFwahT59Chy/0uQRBKB1PyBOqYaF7+Umu+R7tCq2O3POLud7WLk Mbj1x5ClGrDbpSnZ2EY7DqTZWBvm8PCxJdm7Fk0dPwWFAj8hv63jIRQtio1dOssnAkln CGu8dya9XqY7dQpwq49m93h5avw7Raeu+h2fRM2i5A/f+/G/lLQc3Sbz2rG07szNnaQf HnKLzCBYNEBjZN7ucEyvb1qSu4DaUQawsrwuXbuHW0aUVqqIBnLVkcRUlVSZkhd1DE6E 4H5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700822728; x=1701427528; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+JqoKFgiwFxpw1knhALGKhQFjoVEMUmZ/BZGjk7bF7Q=; b=QrIDdIWop1zXvyINGPmcXXAUirN1rSnTBs5r/L29Le+V9MTq/P0EF1AmNuHJ9UhWkp UQjOmtD8ApIptiSg+M5hSwOnMQgYgzR4566qCIEmcqG2DmGcd7tfz8b3y3mLfICD6MVF ChcSblkqIuGR9OPT3bnPpGBal0He2R75iC/0fevSgZLiL2YAtLUYxXVAQ3r4PrnTk05L Eu7u29cqYtmwnAm7B36dg+VnTvDOk+zi8w9GkD8b+nFBq6J9LI5TB48H/jzTkgq0N+qx bS35S69UGTio49W2wSzsbuLZu4W4lxCuuCS4bch4NXdImuiNrLnwTY7gUFrCSxlfCFhM Px5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzGeUZ27REGN9mViqhITYtAiSZFDHl7JCsxoIoCzgOFEYfDio9X lbR6WtHnWiBV/ieYX3cMBxbtMA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHvlQIQtzI3aJtHX7973loRzZJUM0YAeEwgvJvB+ZKtBRhzHzFVoCWi3l+PIBgabtLiHmyHBw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:b8b:b0:32f:9ac4:6f29 with SMTP id dl11-20020a0560000b8b00b0032f9ac46f29mr1819283wrb.70.1700822728178; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 02:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from meli.delivery (adsl-195.37.6.2.tellas.gr. [37.6.2.195]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o10-20020adfcf0a000000b00332cb5185edsm3992338wrj.14.2023.11.24.02.45.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Nov 2023 02:45:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 12:42:50 +0200 From: Manos Pitsidianakis To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , "Daniel P. Berrang=?UTF-8?B?w6k=?= " , Richard Henderson , Alexander Graf , Alex Benn=?UTF-8?B?w6kg?=e , Paolo Bonzini , Markus Armbruster , Phil Mathieu-Daud=?UTF-8?B?w6kg?=, Stefan Hajnoczi , Thomas Huth , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators User-Agent: meli 0.8.4 References: <20231123114026.3589272-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123114026.3589272-3-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123092523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4l0it.9kkxe9s135lg@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4mj7p.m1344a94mzib@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::430; envelope-from=manos.pitsidianakis@linaro.org; helo=mail-wr1-x430.google.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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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 On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 12:25, Kevin Wolf wrote: >Am 23.11.2023 um 15:56 hat Manos Pitsidianakis geschrieben: >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:35, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:40:26AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> > > There has been an explosion of interest in so called "AI" (LLM) >> > > code generators in the past year or so. 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" (LLM) 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 not >> > > accept contributions where use of "AI" (LLM) code generators is >> > > either known, or suspected. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé >> > > --- >> > > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst >> > > index b4591a2dec..a6e42c6b1b 100644 >> > > --- a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst >> > > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst >> > > @@ -195,3 +195,43 @@ example:: >> > > Signed-off-by: Some Person >> > > [Rebased and added support for 'foo'] >> > > Signed-off-by: New Person >> > > + >> > > +Use of "AI" (LLM) code generators >> > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > > + >> > > +TL;DR: >> > > + >> > > + **Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions >> > > + which are believed to include or derive from "AI" (LLM) >> > > + generated code.** >> > > + >> > > +The existence of "AI" (`Large Language Model `__ >> > > +/ LLM) code generators raises a number of difficult legal questions, a >> > > +number of which impact on Open Source projects. As noted earlier, the >> > > +QEMU community requires that contributors certify their patch submissions >> > > +are made in accordance with the rules of the :ref:`dco` (DCO). When a >> > > +patch contains "AI" generated code this raises difficulties with code >> > > +provenence and thus DCO compliance. >> > > + >> > > +To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand >> > > +the origins and license of code they are contributing to QEMU. The >> > > +license terms that should apply to the output of an "AI" code generator >> > > +are ill-defined, given that both training data and operation of the >> > > +"AI" are typically opaque to the user. Even where the training data >> > > +is said to all be open source, it will likely be under a wide variety >> > > +of license terms. >> > > + >> > > +While the vendor's of "AI" code generators may promote the idea that >> > > +code output can be taken under a free choice of license, this is not >> > > +yet considered to be a generally accepted, nor tested, legal opinion. >> > > + >> > > +With this in mind, the QEMU maintainers does not consider it is >> > > +currently possible to comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for most "AI" >> > > +generated code. >> > > + >> > > +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 known or suspected. >> > > + >> > > +Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub CoPilot, >> > > +and ChatGPT, amongst many others which are less well known. >> > >> > >> > So you called out these two by name, fine, but given "AI" is in scare >> > quotes I don't really know what is or is not allowed and I don't know >> > how will contributors know. Is the "AI" that one must not use >> > necessarily an LLM? And how do you define LLM even? Wikipedia says >> > "general-purpose language understanding and generation". >> > >> > >> > All this seems vague to me. >> > >> > >> > However, can't we define a simpler more specific policy? >> > For example, isn't it true that *any* automatically generated code >> > can only be included if the scripts producing said code >> > are also included or otherwise available under GPLv2? >> >> The following definition makes sense to me: >> >> - Automated codegen tool must be idempotent. >> - Automated codegen tool must not use statistical modelling. > >How are these definitions related to your ability to sign the DCO? > >Kevin This was a response to Michael's salient observation that AI and LLM are very vague and not clearly defined terms. I did not mention DCO at all. Manos