Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 06:39:21AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:37:15AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:43:05AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 10:42, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:33:49AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > > > That probably means we can never use even open source LLMs to generate
> > > > > code for QEMU because while the source data is all open source it 
> > > > > won't
> > > > > necessarily be GPL compatible.
> > > >
> > > > I would probably wait until the dust settles before we start accepting
> > > > LLM generated code.
> > > 
> > > I think that's pretty much my take on what this policy is:
> > > "say no for now; we can always come back later when the legal
> > > situation seems clearer".
> > 
> > Yes, that was my thoughts exactly.
> > 
> > And if anyone comes along with a specific LLM/AI code generator that
> > they believe can be used in a way compatible with the DCO, they can
> > ask for an exception to the general policy which we can discuss then.
> 
> Yea. But why do you keep worrying about LLM/AI mess?  Are there code
> generators whose output do allow? What are these?

And to clarify I mean source code in the GPL sense so please do not
say "compiler".

-- 
MST