Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 23.11.2023 um 12:40 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben:
> 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 <berrange@redhat.com>
> ---
>  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 <some.person@example.com>
>    [Rebased and added support for 'foo']
>    Signed-off-by: New Person <new.person@example.com>
> +
> +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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

s/does/do/ or maybe s/maintainers/project/

> +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.

Acked-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>