>>>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to >> look into formally addressing the related concerns.
First of all, I fully support mgorny's proposal. >> 1. Copyright concerns. > I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. > However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing > requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says: >>>> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: >>>> 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me, and >>>> I have the right to submit it under the free software license >>>> indicated in the file; or >>>> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of >>>> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, >>>> and I have the right under that license to submit that work with >>>> modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the >>>> same free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a >>>> different license), as indicated in the file; or >>>> 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), >>>> and verbatim distribution is allowed; or >>>> 4. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person >>>> who certified 1., 2., 3., or 4., and I have not modified it. I have been thinking about this aspect too. Certainly there is some overlap with our GLEP 76 policy, but I don't think that it is redundant. I'd rather see it as a (much needed) clarification how to deal with AI generated code. All the better if the proposal happens to agree with policies that are already in place. Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
