Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> + >> +[[ai]] >> +=== 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. I didn't think about the distinction you are trying to draw when I wrote the patch, but after thinking about it, I think it is a good thing to prevent us from adopting a new logo graphics somebody may have ownership rights without us knowing. I would consider the commit log message as an integral part of any "contribution", and read the word "contribution" used in the [[dco]] section as such, if the rule covers the commit log message, that is very much appreciated. >> +Hence, the project asks that contributors refrain from using AI content >> +generators on changes that are submitted to the project. > > Here it looks like using an AI capable of generating content to just > check code that would be submitted could also be forbidden. I don't > think this is what we want, so I think we might want to reword this. Good point. Asking agents to proofread and suggest improvements is like asking your friends to do so. Care to suggest replacement to these two sentences (above and below)? >> +Contributions in which use of AI is either known or suspected may not >> +be accepted. > > Here also "use of AI" might forbid checking what we submit using any AI tool. Thanks.
