Out of curiosity, have people who are against AI in this conversation actually used AI? From some of the comments, I see they have little idea what an AI workflow looks like and that AI writes code on its own without much human intervention or creativity. Vibe coding and creating high-quality code with AI are two different things.
The only concern I see with AI is the copyright issue. But that's not the problem of this project, but a global problem of how copyright is approached in the AI era. As an anti-copyright advocate, I'm glad that technological advancement may finally put an end to this absurdity (infoanarchist here). czw., 2 lip 2026 o 15:04 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> napisał(a): > Hi Tomek, > > "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is > owner of the result code. > > Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute > > The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain", > you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is > their copyright. > > If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by > humanity, this decision seems fair. > > Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button. > Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey > picture. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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/ > > >
