[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241019234045.GQ10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:40:45 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Proposed "AI" policies
Some mentions here and there of ChatGPT/"AI" in musl- and
musl-adjacent contexts has had me thinking we really should have some
explicit policy on this stuff, which could be posted on the wiki as
well as in final form here, and wherever else it may be appropriate,
before it becomes an issue.
In a sense I don't even see these as "AI policies", just provenance,
authorship-credit, honesty, license-honoring, etc. policies, but
unfortunately it's "AI" that's made it necessary to spell them out
explicitly. So, here's roughly what I have in mind:
1. Please DO NOT submit "AI generated" code/patches for inclusion in
musl. These do not have clear authorship, are derived from models
that are clearly derived from a plethora of copyrighted works
without license or attribution, and thereby cannot be licensed by
the submitter. Being that most patch contributions to musl are
small and simple enough that it's dubious whether copyright applies
at all, this may not be an issue in all cases, but it's still
dishonest and wastes our time reviewing code that the submitter did
not write and does not have any reasonable basis to assume is
correct. Often the changes proposed by these models are blatently
incorrect and introduce bugs/vulns into previously-correct code.
2. Please DO NOT submit "AI generated" or otherwise automated bug
reports without disclosing the provenance (or lack thereof). This
wastes everybody's time. If you are using tooling to identify
potential bugs, please either confirm before reporting that you
have actually found a bug (not just that the tool said it's a bug),
or clearly state in the report that it's unconfirmed, which tools
you used, and why you think the alleged bug may be legitimate -- or
if you don't know you're just asking whether it might be.
3. Even being a permissive license, the MIT license requires
attribution and preservation of copyright notice. It thereby does
not permit incorporation of musl sources (or other MIT licensed
code) into models or derived outputs of models where the necessary
attribution and preservation of copyright notice are not possible.
Anything I'm missing or that seems like it should be changed?
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
