thanks, alek. my point will always be: these LLMs ARE TRAINED on private data. there is no single one that has not broken out to media regarding that. however, the capacity of someone claiming propriety over a snippet of code within an open source codebase is clearly zero. snippets of code are not a codebase. it does not carry a stamp. i dont like to mention (cause seems to be an argument of authority), but the last messages from linus paint very well the scenario: it is inevitable.
disclaimer: i'm biased, since i invest a lot on hardware to run LLMs on my own. my take is more to try to show that it's not a discussion about opening the can. it's already opened. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:28 PM Aleksandar Vidakovic < [email protected]> wrote: > @Fred Amaral <[email protected]> the difference is that when you copy > and paste it's YOUR (the human's) choice and responsibility. If your > argument is that you can copy and paste while ignoring the rules then this > is certainly true, but even if no one knows then YOU still know that > something was not right; if no one detects you then congratulations, but if > someone does then you are the last to hold the bag. > > When you delegate all this to a machine then you are in a whole different > space: when you copy and paste you know what's going on, when an LLM does > this for you (and it does... however indirectly) then you don't know if > something wrong happened (was the LLM trained with GPL licensed data?), but > it doesn't exempt you either (see Adam's proposed policy point no. 2); so > how can you be accountable if you don't know how the results were put > together? OpenAI isn't (or doesn't want to be, see disclaimer). Try to open > 2 separate prompts and enter the same (non-trivial) text... is the result > reproducible? Claiming to not know doesn't make this problem go away > suddenly. > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 7:08 PM Fred Amaral via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> in the old world, was taking a snippet from elsewhere a copyright >> infringement? (really a question, dont know). >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 12:56 PM Aleksandar Vidakovic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ... this sounds like there is a standard... there is not. This is >>> already hard to achieve with classic development... there are a ton of >>> different approaches and (actual) standards (development on embedded >>> components in the automotive industry and similar)... to really make an >>> informed decision here we would need to make sure that two people that run >>> the same tool setup create the same results... I'd say: impossible, but >>> happy to change my mind if you point to an example where this ever happened >>> with AI tools. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 6:17 PM Prashant Rahulkar < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think we should adopt the best industry framework to integrate with >>>> the Development agent. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Prashant Rahulkar. >>>> >>>> On Tue, 1 Sept 2026 at 17:10, Ádám Sághy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My two cents: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since AI is already being used, having rules and a playbook would be >>>>> beneficial to avoid any misunderstandings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Considering its widespread adoption across various fields such as >>>>> development, debugging, testing, brainstorming, and PR reviewing, we don’t >>>>> need to debate whether the Apache or Fineract community wants it. It’s >>>>> already in use, and contributors will continue to use it (*I don’t >>>>> believe there’s a way to prevent it, nor should it be!*). Let’s focus >>>>> on determining appropriate boundaries and its intended use. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: I am not up to date with latest “recommendations” of >>>>> Apache on this topic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Adam Saghy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 1, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Sujan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Aman, >>>>> >>>>> +1 to having some clear boundaries around AI-assisted development. >>>>> >>>>> I think there are valid positives and negatives here. AI can >>>>> definitely help with productivity, debugging, and refactoring, but >>>>> contributors should still understand and take ownership of the changes >>>>> they >>>>> submit. If PRs become mostly AI-generated, it also makes them much harder >>>>> to review effectively. >>>>> >>>>> I think a lightweight, project-specific policy would be a good middle >>>>> ground rather than completely discouraging AI or allowing unrestricted >>>>> use. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 1 Sept, 2026, 11:42 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aman, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for starting this important topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> *+1 to starting a dedicated discussion and adopting a lightweight, >>>>>> project-specific AI policy.* >>>>>> >>>>>> I support the direction because AI-assisted development is already >>>>>> happening (it is very noticeable this year before the GSOC and the >>>>>> increasing numbers of PRs submitted and merged) and clear, practical >>>>>> guidelines (for developers and reviewers) will help us benefit from it >>>>>> without creating problems for maintainers or the project’s legal posture. >>>>>> An optional disclosure approach plus a short *AI_POLICY.md* inspired >>>>>> by Apache Fory’s is a sensible starting point. It can be adapted for >>>>>> Apache >>>>>> Fineract rather than copying it wholesale. >>>>>> >>>>>> To address the concerns raised earlier (including those from Aleks) I >>>>>> think is good to stay aligned with the ASF Generative Tooling Guidance >>>>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Victor Romero >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> El lun, 31 ago 2026 a las 23:44, Aman Mittal (< >>>>>> [email protected]>) escribió: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I want to revive the discussion based on >>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/xxoqt3jn8trhwo1lnxjy46r1dkolfg1h >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and Concerns raised by Aleks in >>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq25gyjsx0wry4jf58odds9z92pfx6bj >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the usage and guidelines of AI, I think we need to discuss >>>>>>> AI-assisted development a bit more, so I'm creating this dedicated >>>>>>> thread >>>>>>> on the dev list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As per my understanding, using AI is fine if contributors understand >>>>>>> their work and can explain their reasoning for each line. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, I'm thinking we can start with an optional disclosure policy on >>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> I think we can add a AI_POLICY.md for each repo. One policy we can >>>>>>> take inspiration from is >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/fory/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md >>>>>>> While we do not need to copy it entirely, we can take inspiration >>>>>>> from it and modify it for FINERACT and all the repos based on community >>>>>>> feedback. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest that it should include Commonly used AI setups that >>>>>>> contributors did not declare in an AI usage disclosure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What does the community think about this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Aman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
