On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:56:28PM +0200, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:35, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:40:26AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > 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 > > > +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. > > > > > > So you called out these two by name, fine, but given "AI" is in scare > > quotes I don't really know what is or is not allowed and I don't know > > how will contributors know. Is the "AI" that one must not use > > necessarily an LLM? And how do you define LLM even? Wikipedia says > > "general-purpose language understanding and generation". > > > > > > All this seems vague to me. > > > > > > However, can't we define a simpler more specific policy? > > For example, isn't it true that *any* automatically generated code > > can only be included if the scripts producing said code > > are also included or otherwise available under GPLv2? > > The following definition makes sense to me: > > - Automated codegen tool must be idempotent. > - Automated codegen tool must not use statistical modelling.
As a casual reader, I would find this somewhat unclear to interpet and relate to. > I'd remove all AI or LLM references. These are non-specific, colloquial and > in the case of `AI`, non-technical. This policy should apply the same to a > Markov chain code generator. The fact that they are colloaquial is, IMHO, a good thing is it makes the policy relatable to the casual reader who hears the terms "AI" and "LLM" in technical press articles/blogs/etc all over the place. I would have considered "Markov chain code generator" to fall under the "AI" reference, since "AI" has defacto become a general purpose term that covers a wierd variety of underlying technologies. 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 :|
