Using phrasing from https://openinfra.org/legal/ai-policy (with just
"commit" replaced by "submission", because we do not submit changes
as commits but rather emails), clarify that the contributor remains
responsible for its copyright or license status.
[This is not my preferred phrasing. I would prefer something lighter
like "the "Signed-off-by" label in the contribution gives the author
responsibility". But for the sake of not reinventing the wheel I am
keeping the exact words from the OpenInfra policy.]
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
QEMU's AI generated content policy does not flesh out the exception
process yet. Do it, while at the same time keeping things informal: ask
contributors to explain what they would like to use AI for, and let them
reach a consensus with the project on why it is credible to claim DCO
compliance in that specific scenario.
In other words, exceptions do not "solve the AI copyright problem". They
take a position that a reasonable contributor could have, and assert that
we're comfortable with the argument.
Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
The AI policy in QEMU is not about content generators, it is about generated
content. Other uses are explicitly not covered. Rename the policy and clarify
its scope in the TL;DR section, as a matter of convenience to the reader.
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
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>
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>
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>
