On Wed, Jun 4, 2025, 05:10 Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 02:25:42PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:25 AM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > > > > > 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 <berra...@redhat.com> > > > Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > > index c27d8fe649..261263cfba 100644 > > > --- a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst > > > @@ -270,4 +270,52 @@ boilerplate code template which is then filled in > to produce the final patch. > > > The output of such a tool would still be considered the "preferred > format", > > > since it is intended to be a foundation for further human authored > changes. > > > Such tools are acceptable to use, provided they follow a > deterministic process > > > -and there is clearly defined copyright and licensing for their output. > > > +and there is clearly defined copyright and licensing for their > output. Note > > > +in particular the caveats applying to AI code generators below. > > > + > > > +Use of AI code generators > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > + > > > +TL;DR: > > > + > > > + **Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions which > are > > > + believed to include or derive from AI generated code. This includes > ChatGPT, > > > + CoPilot, Llama and similar tools** > > > > GitHub spells it "Copilot". > > > > Claude is very popular for coding at the moment and probably worth > mentioning. > > > > > + > > > +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but not > limited > > > > More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding > > assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic code > > generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatGPT > > or Gemini as a chatbot that can people use like Stackoverflow or an > > API documentation summarizer. > > > > I think the intent is to say: do not put code that comes from _any_ AI > > tool into QEMU. > > Right, the intent is that any copyrightable portion of a commit must > not have come directly from an AI/LLM tool, or from an agent which > indirectly/internally uses an AI/LLM tool. > > "code generator" is possibly a little overly specific, as this is really > about any type of tool which emits content that will make its way into > qemu.git, whether code or non-code content (docs, images, etc). > Okay. The use case where AI is used to formulate code comments is common enough that is with pointing it out explicitly in the policy. Many people wouldn't consider that an "AI code generator" use case. Stefan > > It would be okay to use AI to research APIs, algorithms, brainstorm > > ideas, debug the code, analyze the code, etc but the actual code > > changes must not be generated by AI. > > Mostly yes - there's a fuzzy boundary in the debug/analyze use cases, > if the tool is also suggesting code changes to fix issues. > > If the scope of the suggested changes meets the threshold for being > (likely) copyrightable code, that would fall under the policy. > > 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 :| > >
