On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 06:39:21AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:37:15AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:43:05AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 10:42, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:33:49AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > > > That probably means we can never use even open source LLMs to generate > > > > > code for QEMU because while the source data is all open source it > > > > > won't > > > > > necessarily be GPL compatible. > > > > > > > > I would probably wait until the dust settles before we start accepting > > > > LLM generated code. > > > > > > I think that's pretty much my take on what this policy is: > > > "say no for now; we can always come back later when the legal > > > situation seems clearer". > > > > Yes, that was my thoughts exactly. > > > > And if anyone comes along with a specific LLM/AI code generator that > > they believe can be used in a way compatible with the DCO, they can > > ask for an exception to the general policy which we can discuss then. > > Yea. But why do you keep worrying about LLM/AI mess? Are there code > generators whose output do allow? What are these?
And to clarify I mean source code in the GPL sense so please do not say "compiler". -- MST
