On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 12:36 PM Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:32 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Following the example set by QEMU folks, let's explicitly forbid use > > of genAI tools until the copyright and license situations become > > more clear. Here is what QEMU folks say in their commit to adopt > > such a rule: > > > > 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. > > Here they forbid licensing any "AI code generator output" with the DCO. > > > and it applies equally well to ours. [...] > > +=== Use of AI content generators > > + > > +This project requires that contributors certify that their > > +contributions are made under Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1, > > +which in turn means that contributors must understand the full > > +provenance of what they are contributing. With AI content generators, > > +the copyright or license status of their output is ill-defined, without > > +any generally accepted legal foundation. > > Here we would forbid licensing any "AI content generator" output, not > just AI code generator output. So what we would forbid might be more > general than what QEMU folks forbid. For example they might still > accept a new logo, or even commit messages, made using an AI while we > wouldn't. As QEMU is part of the Conservancy, like Git, I wonder if they consulted a Conservancy lawyer to come up with their wording? If they did, maybe we could reuse that expertise?
