On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 10:56 AM Akseli Lahtinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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!
https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs is the place to be. HS
