Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

[Kenton Groombridge <concord@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2603 bytes --]

On 24/02/27 07:07PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@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

This is my interpretation of it as well, especially when it comes to
para. 2:

>>> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of
>>> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license,
>>> [...]

It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to verify this with some of
these tools, and that's assuming that the user of these tools knows
enough about how they work where this is a concern to them. I would
argue it's best to stay away from these tools at least until there is more
clear and concise legal interpretation of their usage in relation to
copyright.

-- 
Kenton Groombridge
Gentoo Linux Developer, SELinux Project

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]