From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38E80158041 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71239E2A2A; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E60AE2A1F for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:27:18 -0500 From: Kenton Groombridge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jou6mf3nonyeatpb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: eebb7b47-41e2-46d9-96e7-df72d1fb3712 X-Archives-Hash: 23dd1f76de3eac8c5c09cb43bd8c6f64 --jou6mf3nonyeatpb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 24/02/27 07:07PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45=E2=80=AFAM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > >>=20 > >> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > >> look into formally addressing the related concerns. >=20 > First of all, I fully support mgorny's proposal. >=20 > >> 1. Copyright concerns. >=20 > > I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. >=20 > > However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing > > requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says: >=20 > >>>> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: >=20 > >>>> 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 >=20 > >>>> 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 >=20 > >>>> 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), > >>>> and verbatim distribution is allowed; or >=20 > >>>> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. --=20 Kenton Groombridge Gentoo Linux Developer, SELinux Project --jou6mf3nonyeatpb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAABCgB9FiEEP+u3AkfbrORB/inCFt7v5V9Ft54FAmXeKYJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNG RUJCNzAyNDdEQkFDRTQ0MUZFMjlDMjE2REVFRkU1NUY0NUI3OUUACgkQFt7v5V9F t57F6w//cyQ01mguCOERISyYJbgwGfaZ6Yhft+wf7mNU8f0/bHw4t0DKIAsFtKzL 7C7BiS45AAnMJ+jCT6G+RThy1owLojQ/oA/uQ0X9y+KVyIIX4/HN6PPXfqS7Jzai LvuRXl+pv4IkG02gRFHyStW99P9i9qEfIxKRc5KnG5ChT0uZ4RxlaA51UgBUz6d2 OHlE6yhLli6tZQuO8pFeGyN+5RPdni9P0ziLgXBMA4xKw8+fmLG5P/cuHlws1Lee Y4Zo3PTqNsq2iaILc+FQid9i+IVHlEWU/GFpgRG34K+M5uZ/uak8n5SbizgnHEnc aP4/1+J8ScVULlz/bfK4BmOl86E+S0kkNm5ZJjcMoM0Orjye7G6Dn+rzFzKMPeUD xYupUKCd7CcTIc1Ng9RsX7DTqAeRzcitGYecNr+sPxcCLh3LytFklO23PAipVSRU SxDnsH04C8lj2LBFqzu/xjr4TVc5XXmIXCpPk4zezv9z9ld8NtpaemDY7iyjx7sZ f21TzeZ35jChlF3P2GGwRIg8zFclFm3alQnBJupI0VCx58oTx+1PN64B5OdBKR8t zHB8HK4JZM4SLvnRlgX9jf7djd2Ofn/7T3qOXFX5lbKSCBRiG/w8f9/4Odl7jEVU 0fVQUpYbkXYNQKTJnyD6ePlGF0EPNpZxb4fNpwe46dId882cKM8= =FrQC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jou6mf3nonyeatpb--