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 <berra...@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.per...@example.com> > [Rebased and added support for 'foo'] > Signed-off-by: New Person <new.per...@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 <kw...@redhat.com>
