Just a more clarification: You can claim that the code is your copyright if the AI was used to guide you and you wrote the code (it is not just a Copy/Paste code from AI chat).
BR, Alan On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 10:03 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >> >
