I think we had this discussion some time ago. The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot be attributed Apache license.
We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple. Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules that are project specific - just as code formatting right? 1.18. AI and Agents. 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX). 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to avoid that. 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming, prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction, verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality results. 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests, or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner even if you created the result. If this is your first or following contribution you will be banned. 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the presented rules. 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in accordance with presented rules. -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at: > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it > as ai slop right away. > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added, > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI. > > > Thus my response in the PR but also here: > > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize AI > > to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later. > > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and > enthusiasts. > > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem > but not become part of the problem :-) > > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-) > > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from > here. The same with AI :-) > > > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our" > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts. > > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O > > -- > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that > > must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this > > code! > > > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth > > considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache > > policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant. > > > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google: > > > > > > * > > Some general discussion: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf > > * > > Apache VP of Legal Affairs: > > https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source > > * > > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance: > > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html > > > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow the > > same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > NuttX still has not adopted an AI policy, and the number of substantially > > AI-generated contributions is continuing to grow. Recently, the Godot > > project adopted a new AI policy which I think is quite reasonable. [1] > > > > I would like to suggest that NuttX adopt the AI policy from Godot [1] > > (slightly modified for more clarity), as follows, and include it in our > > contribution guide: > > > > - *No autonomous AI agent use or vibe coding* > > > > - A human must be involved in the coding process if patches are submitted > > > > - *No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code* > > > > - We require all code to be human authored. AI assistance should be > > limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, formatting, or > > find > > and replace). > > - If you do use AI in some capacity to author code, you must disclose it > > in the PR discussion. > > > > - *No AI-generated text in human-to-human communication* > > > > - When our maintainers volunteer their time to review your issue, PR, or > > proposal, they do not want to talk to a machine. This is a basic > > principle > > of respect. > > - Machine translations are still acceptable as long as the original > > content was written by a human. > > - This includes PR descriptions and comments. > > > > - *All PRs must be reviewed and approved by a human before merging* > > Please let me know your thoughts, I really think it is time to adopt this > > change as I am seeing more and more frequently that substantially > > AI-generated PRs are submitted (what is really most frustrating is its use > > in human-to-human communication). > > > > Best, > > Matteo > > > > [1]: https://godotengine.org/article/contribution-policy-2026/
