Hi Greg, Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis:
> But the rule of thumb is losing nuance when summarizing the linked > document. Oracle and GNU have the same goal, to own the copyright in > order to sue (for profit and to protect the GPL, respectively). And > the documentation is clear that simple contributions which separately > are non-copyrightable can as a compilation become copyrightable. But > Guix does not aggregate copyright, instead simply requiring licensing > of the derivative work under the GPLv3. Since "legally significant" > cannot have the same meaning within the Guix project, how are we to > understand the use of this term in GCD 008? The text says "to ensure > the contributor has a valid copyright claim on the code" but the rule > of thumb seems to attempt to list non-copyrightable contributions. Yes, I’m sorry: the wording was confusing (cannot have a copyright claim on something that is not copyrightable). Jason Conroy pointed out the same problem and I pushed a fix. >> I see two possibilities. >> >> 1. Clarify “encouragement”: >> >> Examples of what would qualify as “encouraging the use of genAI” >> includes: providing project members with a commercial LLM >> subscription, communicating publicly on genAI-produced artifacts >> related to Guix (e.g., in blog posts), suggesting in pull requests and >> issues that people use genAI to solve their problem, and any similar >> action. >> >> 2. Drop “nor encourage use”. I’m not a fan of this as it weakens the >> rule, but maybe that’s okay in practice (hard for the project to >> encourage without using). > > I would expect that references to non-free models would be disallowed, > as with non-free software, but that generic discussion and help with > permitted use would be allowed. No; that’s not an example I gave above, and not one I have in mind. One can refer to Claude, just like one can write about Blender, but it’s just not the right forum for this. > As elsewhere, applying the existing consensus project rules and > guidelines to this new technology rather than creating a new > regulation. There are no existing rules on this topic though. >> Right, exactly. By “copying text” I meant pasting text: the human is in >> the loop, but only to hit C-c and C-v (indistinguishable from an agent). >> Would saying “pasting” instead of “copying” (I think that’s how Simon >> phrased it) be clearer? >> >> What kind of “genAI actions” not covered by policy rule #3 do you have >> in mind? > > Somewhat continuing from above, I expect the project would only run > free models, and I can imagine a future where the user could request > insight from that model on failed builds similar to guix-cuirass-bot. > Or a QA-like system could evaluate logs for failed builds before > retrying multiple times, conserving resources. The user would be > taking action (such as following a link) to see the generative output. I would rather not make a policy based on this hypothetical scenario because AFAIK, “free models” (as in gratis) today perform poorly and very slowly on commodity hardware. > Copying vs pasting makes no difference to me, but I would prefer to > have these examples and clarifications in the GCD text. Or the > Originalists, Textualists, and Living Documentists must argue over the > meaning. Which examples and clarifications would you like to add? >> Instead I would prefer plain text disclosure, a checkbox in the pull >> request template, or a tag like ‘LLM-Assistance: debugging’. >> >> WDYT? > > Is a checkbox or tag sufficient for that use? I think so: it’s enough for the reviewer to know that an LLM was used in some way. Thanks, Ludo’.
