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 1CFE1158041 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87FCD2BC01C; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42AC6E2A1A for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:07:45 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: Rich Freeman Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo In-Reply-To: (Rich Freeman's message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:41:42 -0500") References: Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) 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; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: a95cf621-0aef-4c4b-9d8c-9c91250f0ae8 X-Archives-Hash: 1ecdfcdeae768aa29c280ec4667bf618 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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. 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 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAmXeJOgPHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4uhj0IAKX+t7W7TrbdO6mJNitPWb5VSTx6hjwM4wCz extUg4mUaTrQ8zOyzQR7z6APWSlkf7U4rBmBVu+fuHQZpPW/KaSo2DXBErfPOlMq vtfhgIuPY5HIGd4SZDBzqrV/u8orOGAOUGljs5KTSDzMkxduEgbTaampPpfdaA51 Ikkz3dKs/3o4MjXE2W+CEg2/kZD1wsg7bghmPF8fGF60t7e14acV1xPQF1RsIebV 2VfGsj+wWsrIF08gOSW5udDohV2rgYLf/14v6TcBbzQ+ySmr/Lz7IqMz72tUXhjq 0Q6J9+vxFa0Kmblmtr/3PckbTCvv5O+/21sYTQIrneGazBLBhbQ= =8aQO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--