#
3d40db0e
|
| 16-Jun-2025 |
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> |
docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
There has been an explosion of interest in so called AI code generators. Thus far though, this is has not been matched by a broadly accepted
docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
There has been an explosion of interest in so called AI code generators. Thus far though, this is has not been matched by a broadly accepted legal interpretation of the licensing implications for code generator outputs. While the vendors may claim there is no problem and a free choice of license is possible, they have an inherent conflict of interest in promoting this interpretation. More broadly there is, as yet, no broad consensus on the licensing implications of code generators trained on inputs under a wide variety of licenses
The DCO requires contributors to assert they have the right to contribute under the designated project license. Given the lack of consensus on the licensing of AI code generator output, it is not considered credible to assert compliance with the DCO clause (b) or (c) where a patch includes such generated code.
This patch thus defines a policy that the QEMU project will currently not accept contributions where use of AI code generators is either known, or suspected.
These are early days of AI-assisted software development. The legal questions will be resolved eventually. The tools will mature, and we can expect some to become safely usable in free software projects. The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to revision. It's best to start strict and safe, then relax.
Meanwhile requests for exceptions can also be considered on a case by case basis.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
show more ...
|
#
b5d00557
|
| 16-Jun-2025 |
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> |
docs: define policy limiting the inclusion of generated files
Files contributed to QEMU are generally expected to be provided in the preferred format for manipulation. IOW, we generally don't expect
docs: define policy limiting the inclusion of generated files
Files contributed to QEMU are generally expected to be provided in the preferred format for manipulation. IOW, we generally don't expect to have generated / compiled code included in the tree, rather, we expect to run the code generator / compiler as part of the build process.
There are some obvious exceptions to this seen in our existing tree, the biggest one being the inclusion of many binary firmware ROMs. A more niche example is the inclusion of a generated eBPF program. Or the CI dockerfiles which are mostly auto-generated. In these cases, however, the preferred format source code is still required to be included, alongside the generated output.
Tools which perform user defined algorithmic transformations on code are not considered to be "code generators". ie, we permit use of coccinelle, spell checkers, and sed/awk/etc to manipulate code. Such use of automated manipulation should still be declared in the commit message.
One off generators which create a boilerplate file which the author then fills in, are acceptable if their output has clear copyright and license status. This could be where a contributor writes a throwaway python script to automate creation of some mundane piece of code for example.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
show more ...
|
#
2b0e4ecd
|
| 16-Jun-2025 |
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> |
docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off
Currently we have a short paragraph saying that patches must include a Signed-off-by line, and merely link to the kernel documentation
docs: introduce dedicated page about code provenance / sign-off
Currently we have a short paragraph saying that patches must include a Signed-off-by line, and merely link to the kernel documentation. The linked kernel docs have a lot of content beyond the part about sign-off an thus are misleading/distracting to QEMU contributors.
This introduces a dedicated 'code-provenance' page in QEMU talking about why we require sign-off, explaining the other tags we commonly use, and what to do in some edge cases.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
show more ...
|