On Monday 24 November 2025 11:25:00 Eastern European Standard Time Vlad Zahorodnii wrote: > On 11/24/25 11:20 AM, Akseli Lahtinen wrote: > > On Monday 24 November 2025 11:09:19 Eastern European Standard Time Vlad > > > > Zahorodnii wrote: > >> On 11/24/25 2:16 AM, Akseli Lahtinen wrote: > >>> Contributor is always responsible for the code changes and creation, > >>> regardless where the code came from, such as: > >>> - Code was written completely by the contributor. > >>> - Code was generated by an LLM/"AI" or any other tool. > >>> - Code was given to contributor by someone else. > >> > >> It needs to be supplemented with a license. > >> > >>> - Code was copy-pasted from the internet. > >> > >> If the code has a license attached to it, sure. Otherwise, it seems like > >> a no-no thing. That being said, you can't also verify that that code > >> hasn't been copied from elsewhere, but I don't think that we should say > >> it's okay to do it. You can have a look at code and have your own take > >> on it. > >> > >>> Contributor must try their best to understand what their contribution > >>> is changing and they must be able to justify the changes. > >>> > >>> Using any tools to help understand and justify those changes does not > >>> change or reduce the expectations. > >>> > >>> The changes are attributed to the contributor, no matter whatever tools > >>> they have used. > >> > >> I am not a lawyer and I don't follow the legal stuff closely, but last > >> time I heard about the ownership attribution cases, it had still been a > >> muddy water thing. There are several schools of thought, each of which > >> has a leg to stand on: "it's a clever autocomplete machine, so you can't > >> claim ownership of a work, which is owned by somebody else" or "you > >> can't claim copyright just because you typed a query, you didn't put in > >> enough of creative effort to claim the ownership," or "the generated is > >> not strictly the same as the source data so it has been transformed," > >> etc. > >> > >> To be frank, I think the best course of action is to sit it out and see > >> where laws end up being. > > > > I am definitely fine with this too. My main concern is, what do we say to > > people asking about this? > > As you said, if a person doesn't understand the changes at all, I think > such MRs should be rejected. But figuring it out will be a cat and a > mouse game (because they could use the LLM to answer your questions :p). > That being said, I personally don't think KDE should come out and say > "we approve/reject AI", it's still uncharted territory, maybe some vague > guidelines for maintainers and developers but nothing strict. >
Hm, so instead of direct policy, just have maintainer guideline for dealing with this situation? I do like that idea actually! > Regards, > Vlad Best regards, - Akseli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
