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 2EEAAC7115B for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uUhon-0001Ur-CL; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 04:18:49 -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 1uUhol-0001UZ-FV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 04:18:47 -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 1uUhoe-0000ju-2K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 04:18:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1750925918; h=from:from:reply-to: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=ZII6pwIZHcjn10bvI0HrhQOeLlFOkL2hrp0dcR05Mck=; b=GoNtZ1+2Xb7xRhM8YV8QVHltZWGc2kKDMe8r18IiH4phsrRUBY6Hzv3A99lHVvt06r0hgb FL2nc1qwuN1ayYe/TC4SqsmCcE0sHrtM6eG+oDp9YQMtc7UNccJ6PIsDGYGCfwXTVBazA7 mVL3cZH0bc+zWC4V8WcOulNzgQX+Rb8= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-447-qIyt81rDN_ufCZixBhOV3A-1; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 04:18:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: qIyt81rDN_ufCZixBhOV3A-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: qIyt81rDN_ufCZixBhOV3A_1750925913 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (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 mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C381954215; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.58]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2D419560B3; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:18:22 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Kevin Wolf , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators Message-ID: References: <20250616092241.212898-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250616092241.212898-4-armbru@redhat.com> <20250625150941-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20250625164902-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20250625164902-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.14 (2025-02-20) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@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=-0.001, 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_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 04:49:17PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 04:47:06PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 4:39 PM Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > > > Am 25.06.2025 um 21:16 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben: > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:22:41AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > > > From: Daniel P. Berrangé > > > > > > > > > > There has been an explosion of interest in so called AI code > > > > > generators. 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. > > > > > > > > > > These are early days of AI-assisted software development. The legal > > > > > questions will be resolved eventually. The tools will mature, and we > > > > > can expect some to become safely usable in free software projects. > > > > > The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to revision. It's > > > > > best to start strict and safe, then relax. > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile requests for exceptions can also be considered on a case by > > > > > case basis. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé > > > > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf > > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi > > > > > Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster > > > > > > > > Sorry about only reacting now, was AFK. > > > > > > > > So one usecase that to me seems entirely valid, is refactoring. > > > > > > > > For example, change a function prototype, or a structure, > > > > and have an LLM update all callers. > > > > > > > > The only part of the patch that is expressive is the > > > > actual change, the rest is a technicality and has IMHO nothing to do with > > > > copyright. LLMs can just do it with no hassle. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we soften this to only apply to expressive code? > > > > > > > > I feel a lot of cleanups would be enabled by this. > > > > > > Hasn't refactoring been a (deterministically) solved problem long before > > > LLMs became capable to do the same with a good enough probability? > > > > It's easier to describe a desired refactoring to an LLM in natural > > language than to figure out the regexes, semantic patches, etc needed > > for traditional refactoring tools. > > > > Also, LLMs can perform higher level refactorings that might not be > > supported by traditional tools. Things like "split this interface into > > callbacks that take a Foo * argument and implement the callbacks for > > both a.c and b.c". > > > > I think what Daniel mentioned is a good guide: if it's something that > > you think it copyrightable, then avoid it. > > Right. Let's put that in the doc? In terms of mitigating risk I think it is better to avoid saying that explicitly, and be seen to actively encourage acceptance of AI generated code. The boundary between copyrightable and non-copyrightable code is always pretty fuzzy and a matter of differing opinions. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|