On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 12:23, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > This patch kicks the hornet's nest of AI / LLM code generators. > > With the increasing interest in code generators in recent times, > it is inevitable that QEMU contributions will include AI generated > code. Thus far we have remained silent on the matter. Given that > everyone knows these tools exist, our current position has to be > considered tacit acceptance of the use of AI generated code in QEMU. > > The question for the project is whether that is a good position for > QEMU to take or not ? > > IANAL, but I like to think I'm reasonably proficient at understanding > open source licensing. I am not inherantly against the use of AI tools, > rather I am anti-risk. I also want to see OSS licenses respected and > complied with. > > AFAICT at its current state of (im)maturity the question of licensing > of AI code generator output does not have a broadly accepted / settled > legal position. This is an inherant bias/self-interest from the vendors > promoting their usage, who tend to minimize/dismiss the legal questions. > From my POV, this puts such tools in a position of elevated legal risk. > > Given the fuzziness over the legal position of generated code from > such tools, I don't consider it credible (today) for a contributor > to assert compliance with the DCO terms (b) or (c) (which is a stated > pre-requisite for QEMU accepting patches) when a patch includes (or is > derived from) AI generated code. > > By implication, I think that QEMU must (for now) explicitly decline > to (knowingly) accept AI generated code. > > Perhaps a few years down the line the legal uncertainty will have > reduced and we can re-evaluate this policy. > > Discuss...
Although this policy is unenforceable, I think it's a valid position to take until the legal situation becomes clear. Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com>
