Hi, [email protected] skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: > >> [...] >> >> I think you are referring to point #2 of the “Policy” section: >> >> 2. **Contribution acceptance.** Contributions produced in whole or in >> part by genAI MAY be accepted provided the changes are not >> [“legally >> >> significant”](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html), >> to avoid any risk of copyright infringement. >> As a rule of thumb, this includes code less than 15-line-long, or >> package definitions that are evidently not creative, similar to >> those that `guix import` and similar tools might produce. >> GenAI-produced contributions that do not meet this criterion will >> be rejected. > > Hi, if a single commit with <15 lines from genAI maybe accepted, what > about a pull request contains multiple of such commits. If not then what > about multiple pull requests with each contain only one such commit? Repeated non-legally-significant contributions can add up and form one legally-significant contribution. It is hard to track that. But again, the problem is not completely new: projects that require copyright assignment (Emacs, and previously Guile, for instance) need to take that into account when determining whether or not someone must have a valid copyright assignment on file. I don’t think this particular aspect has caused much friction (copyright assignment does cause friction, but not because of this). > And consider the practice list agents in Co-authored-by (and even > Author), doesn't that make a said genAI agent easily contribute more > than 15 lines? The document does not propose to use ‘Co-authored-by’ for LLMs (and I’ve read that many projects use ‘Assisted-by’ for that). HTH! Ludo’.
