Re: [PATCH 3/3] docs/code-provenance: AI exceptions are in addition to DCO

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 29.09.2025 um 11:19 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> On 9/29/25 09:54, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 22.09.2025 um 17:48 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> > > Using phrasing from https://openinfra.org/legal/ai-policy (with just
> > > "commit" replaced by "submission", because we do not submit changes
> > > as commits but rather emails), clarify that the contributor remains
> > > responsible for its copyright or license status.
> > 
> > I feel here the commit message is clearer than...
> > 
> > > +Exceptions do not remove the need for authors to comply with all other
> > > +requirements for contribution.  In particular, the "Signed-off-by"
> > > +label in a patch submissions is a statement that the author takes
> > > +responsibility for the entire contents of the patch, including any parts
> > > +that were generated or assisted by AI tools or other tools.
> > 
> > ...the actually committed text. We should probably mention "copyright or
> > license status" explicitly here in some way instead of just a more
> > generic "responsibility for the entire contents" without referring to
> > copyright.
> 
> It's mentioned earlier, since the responsibility is not limited to
> exceptions: "To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully
> understand the copyright and license status of content they are contributing
> to QEMU".  I find this sentence to be already a bit heavy, and would prefer
> not to make it longer.

Isn't the whole paragraph meant to say that exceptions don't make any of
earlier mentioned requirements go away? So I don't think it would be
redundant in this context, even though of course it would repeat the
requirement just to tell more specifically what it's referring to.

If you don't want to say "copyright or license status" here, referring
to "DCO requirements" would have the same effect (because we do have
the explanation you quoted).

Kevin