Hi Frank, On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 12:00 PM Frank Ch. Eigler <[email protected]> wrote: > > (2) AI-assisted contributions should otherwise be treated like any > > other contribution. The contributor vouches for the quality of their > > contribution and verifies license compatibility with their DCO > > "Signed-off-by:" tag while reviewers evaluate the technical merits of > > the contribution. [...] > > If only we had expert guidance as to how a developer (or a maintainer) > can perform (or verify) this vouching, operationally. What burden of > proof, what procedure, etc.? Whereas previously someone submitting > plagiarized code would likely do so deliberately, now they could do so > accidentally. But as far as a project's concerned, a later discovery > of infringment would have about the same impact: git revert and a > messy cleanup. So maybe defaulting to "accept" is okay and matches > status quo.
AI tools may increase the chance of accidental plagiarism or license incompatibility. But as you suggest, this risk to the project isn't categorically different from non-AI-assisted contributions. There is always the possibility of accidental infringement (AI-assisted or otherwise) and the project has ways to handle it. IMO this risk does not warrant a blanket refusal of AI-assisted contributions. Aaron
