Some changes to QEMU's code provenance policy with respect to AI-generated content.
First of all, clarify the intended scope: the policy is not about content generators, it is about generated content (patch 1). Second, establish the exception process as what it is meant to be: a friendly/welcoming discussion where a contributor explains what they would like to use AI for, and consensus is reached on why it is credible for them to claim DCO compliance. To this end, also clarify that AI exceptions are a description and not an override of DCO compliance. While the RFC had a motivating example of exception, leave it out as these improvements are useful on their own. Paolo Supersedes: <[email protected]> Paolo Bonzini (3): docs/code-provenance: clarify scope very early docs/code-provenance: make the exception process more prominent docs/code-provenance: AI exceptions are in addition to DCO docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) -- 2.51.0
