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 60DDBC25B78 for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 15:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sByxa-0002a1-Vh; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:41:58 -0400 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 1sByxZ-0002ZK-GI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:41:57 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sByxU-00051i-T7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:41:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1716910911; h=from:from: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=OjXWuB8b1EOLCAUW+Njk6CnoXCunwpGGGxEagxLPC3Q=; b=OFtr5uyeHh+TEW8/P9gkX73/sTMSAG4PUiRwa59bm31PmOj838upoKLdgy4LKCm63UJiH2 BteyAjlgklZDN+19K/iF9lyoSLpq795V1TzSIHdD/RtfM2OqNBuWjtbwWjagxe+GTBJosW dsO7ACFwAoeiws5s9bpHD4hZRqDOBe0= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-187-P9YWyXz2MKG_JnkF-hTj2g-1; Tue, 28 May 2024 11:41:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: P9YWyXz2MKG_JnkF-hTj2g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (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 mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF1231C0512D; Tue, 28 May 2024 15:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.39.195.1]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EBD2C15BB1; Tue, 28 May 2024 15:41:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 17:41:43 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Peter Maydell , Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators Message-ID: References: <20240516162230.937047-1-berrange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20240516162230.937047-1-berrange@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.8 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.034, 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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 Am 16.05.2024 um 18:22 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > This patch kicks the hornet's nest of AI / LLM code generators. > > With the increasing interest in code generators in recent times, > it is inevitable that QEMU contributions will include AI generated > code. Thus far we have remained silent on the matter. Given that > everyone knows these tools exist, our current position has to be > considered tacit acceptance of the use of AI generated code in QEMU. > > The question for the project is whether that is a good position for > QEMU to take or not ? > > IANAL, but I like to think I'm reasonably proficient at understanding > open source licensing. I am not inherantly against the use of AI tools, > rather I am anti-risk. I also want to see OSS licenses respected and > complied with. > > AFAICT at its current state of (im)maturity the question of licensing > of AI code generator output does not have a broadly accepted / settled > legal position. This is an inherant bias/self-interest from the vendors > promoting their usage, who tend to minimize/dismiss the legal questions. > From my POV, this puts such tools in a position of elevated legal risk. > > Given the fuzziness over the legal position of generated code from > such tools, I don't consider it credible (today) for a contributor > to assert compliance with the DCO terms (b) or (c) (which is a stated > pre-requisite for QEMU accepting patches) when a patch includes (or is > derived from) AI generated code. > > By implication, I think that QEMU must (for now) explicitly decline > to (knowingly) accept AI generated code. > > Perhaps a few years down the line the legal uncertainty will have > reduced and we can re-evaluate this policy. > > Discuss... > > Changes in v2: > > * Fix a huge number of typos in docs > * Clarify that maintainers should still add R-b where relevant, even > if they are already adding their own S-oB. > * Clarify situation when contributor re-starts previously abandoned > work from another contributor. > * Add info about Suggested-by tag > * Add new docs section dealing with the broad topic of "generated > files" (whether code generators or compilers) > * Simplify the section related to prohibition of AI generated files > and give further examples of tools considered covered > * Remove repeated references to "LLM" as a specific technology, just > use the broad "AI" term, except for one use of LLM as an example. > * Add note that the policy may evolve if the legal clarity improves > * Add note that exceptions can be requested on case-by-case basis > if contributor thinks they can demonstrate a credible copyright > and licensing status > > Daniel P. Berrangé (3): > docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off > docs: define policy limiting the inclusion of generated files > docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators > > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 315 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > docs/devel/index-process.rst | 1 + > docs/devel/submitting-a-patch.rst | 19 +- > 3 files changed, 318 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf