Christopher Albert via Gcc <[email protected]> writes: > I would add one practical point from recent experience.
I usually don't post to the gcc groups, but I have some thoughts that might be relevent here, as this is a common topic across many groups. (no need to take my thoughts seriously ;) > A substantial part of my own recent GCC contributions was only possible > because reviewers and maintainers engaged seriously with patches I > developed Excellent! > using AI tools under my direction. Yet you didn't disclose that until now, which is the part that concerns us. In the past, the DCO implies that you wrote the patch yourself (vs copying it from elsewhere), despite how it is technically written, and if AI is changing that implication, we need to be clear on that first. Until then, it's best to disclose any origins of code other than stuff you write yourself, so that everyone has the same understanding of the code's origin. On the glibc list, we're even talking about disclosing when patches are mechanically generated from scripts, so... > In at least some cases, it would be fair to say that this went beyond > AI as pure "idea generation": the tools were part of the development > workflow that let me produce, iterate on, and validate fixes much more > efficiently. We agree that using AI in non-generating parts of the process (understanding, ideas, reviews, testing, etc) is not an issue. Code-generating uses of any tool creates a copyright question which must be answered. > The patches were still submitted by me, reviewed by me, tested by me, Excellent! > In practice, this workflow was very successful. I do not think I could > have fixed so many bugs, at that quality and speed, without it. Yay! (not being sarcastic, I'm glad people are learning new ways and tools to be productive) > I would therefore be cautious about a policy that is too strict. Sadly, because GCC and other large projects are very popular and very visible, we must be overly cautious about copyright issues. Getting this wrong can be truly damaging. > The legal picture also seems more nuanced to me > "the analysis is case-specific" > *EU. The CJEU standard is > *UK. CDPA 1988 s.9(3) assigns authorship of computer-generated works That these are all different is itself a problem, too. The copyright status of AI generated content is not fully decided yet. > These regimes do not, in my view, support a simple categorical rule Exactly. GCC is a global project so we have to come up with guidelines that work acceptably for all regimes we operate in. Until we do, we must err on the side of caution. > The more relevant question seems to be whether there is sufficient human > authorship and control over the final result. Yup. And we don't know what that is at the moment. Until the we do, or the FSF gives us concrete guidance, being overly cautious and taking a 'no significant AI code yet" approach is best for us.
