Hi,
I saw Thiago submitted already a session for the QtCS,
and last month I started a QUIP based on the guidelines from
the Linux Kernel, Rust Foundation, Python Core development, and OpenSSF:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/meta/quips/+/742364
but I guess we will have a discussion during CS to somehow agree
on this, because also we have seen a few external contributions
with AI that we don't know how to proceed.
I do support the ideas that folks are now questioning the necessity
of writing which company/model was use, which might be an ad,
so for sure that is one of the reasons to discuss this and settle
on maybe having some flag, without specifying company/model
might be a good approach.
Cheers
On 7/20/26 9:27 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
Hi,
I see more and more patches in Qt being written with the assistance of
AI tools. (For the sake of brevity, I'm putting everything under the
same umbrella, from "LLM improved the English spelling in my commit
message" to "this 10'000-lines patch is 100% AI product I didn't even
review it")
Do we have a policy in that regard? Especially one for external
contributors, who are supposed to honor the CLA, which (amongst other
things) implies things like:
Licensor represents and warrants that it or its Affiliate is the owner
of the Licensor Contribution(s) and that it
or its Affiliate(s) has the authority to grant the licenses thereto
set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this
Agreement.
which is pretty much a gray area right now. (The CLA is under UK law.)
I guess that, since such patches have landed, we generally accept AI-
generated contributions? Can we have a formal statement in that regard?
Thanks,
--
Dr. Cristian Maureira-Fredes
Principal R&D Manager
The Qt Company GmbH
Erich-Thilo-Str. 10
12489 Berlin, Germany
Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi,
Juha Varelius, Juha Puputti
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin,
Registergericht: Amtsgericht
Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B
--
--
Development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
