Hi On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 9:19 AM Ludovico Toscano via QGIS-Developer < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I'm a small contribuitor of qgis, it's my first time posting here and I > was interest by this discussion. > > I have an idea which is saw implemented in ghostty, to prevent > contribution from bot or vibe coders. Basically the author of the repo has > made a honeypot for these agents, he has made a AGENTS.md and a CLAUDE.md > where in the last line of the document he tell the model to make a md file > that saing "I am a sad, dumb little AI driver with no real skills." His > idea is simple, if the author of the pr doesn't read the diff of the pr he > will not notice that the LLM has added this file and this trigger a > immediate ban. > > https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/blob/main/AGENTS.md > > I hope this can be usefull, given that a bot or vibe coder will not read > the policy like he's not reading the code this solution can be a first > filter. > I don't think degrading people is at all in line with our culture as a project. By all means put guidelines in place as to how AI can be used, but always deal with people in a positive way - for example the same mechanism could be used to add a line into the patch like "This line was automatically added by your LLM as a validation check. Please remove it before submitting your PR." Regards Tim > > Regards, Ludovico. > ------------------------------ > *Da:* QGIS-Developer <[email protected]> per conto > di Vincent Picavet via QGIS-Developer <[email protected]> > *Inviato:* martedì, 23 giugno 2026 08:56 > *A:* Alessandro Pasotti <[email protected]>; Nyall Dawson < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* qgis-developer <[email protected]> > *Oggetto:* Re: [QGIS-Developer] Tightening AI submission policy? > > > Hello, > > Thanks for this proposal, I can only be in favor of a stricter policy. > > I would also add a specific item on IP, even if I do not like pushing the > burden to contributors while have no way of ensuring IP compliance. > > In the line of : > > - "By contributing to this project, you are responsible to ensure that you > have the corresponding and sufficient intellectual property rights on all > contributed code without exception to comply to this project's opensource > licences and IP policies. Note that code generated by LLM has a high > probability of copyright infringement." > Also a few resources for inspiration. I think if we can reuse other's > positions word by word (if the idea is the same), it makes opensource > project's position as a community stronger. Maybe we will end up converging > towards a kind of standard opensource policy on AI, and that would be good > for everyone ( and then one day the opensource world sues proprietary LLMs > for copyright infringement, but that's another story). > > - NLnet; Policy on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for > NLnet-funded projects : https://nlnet.nl/foundation/policies/generativeAI/ > - Using LLMs Responsibly - Responsible AI Guide : > https://responsibleai.guide/ > - LLM-gen-AI - Software Freedom Conservancy : > https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html > > Regards, > > Vincent > > > > > On 23/06/2026 07:10, Alessandro Pasotti via QGIS-Developer wrote: > > Big +1 > > It's probably hard to put in clear terms (and forgive my English), but > I think that the criteria should be even stricter than "contribute > only what you understand": > > "Do not contribute anything that you wouldn't have been fully capable > of writing on your own without any AI assistance." > > or > > "Contribute only what you could have done by yourself without any AI > assistance." > > Tthis makes it more likely that you will be able to fix or improve > your work if needed. > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 1:47 AM Nyall Dawson via > QGIS-Developer<[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi lists, > > Following recent discussions and conflict within the PostGIS community, I > would like us to consider tightening our AI submission policy to hopefully > avoid similar conflict arising in our community. > > I would propose that we move away from our current (quite permissive) "human > in the loop" policy (see > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/blob/master/qep-408-ai-tool-policy.md > ) to something more restrictive, such as what the GDAL project has done. See > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/33399bf734f48a6727050ccd13a43575d43f6bf4/doc/source/community/ai_tool_policy.rst). > > In short, GDAL's policy is: > > Contributors can make limited use of LLMs for contributions in GDAL, subject > to details mentioned below: > > - Human contributors must be the primary author(s) of GDAL contributions > - All contributions including code, ticket comments, and commit messages > should be fully understood by the author(s) submitting them to the project. > - Submission of vibe-coded contributions is banned. > - LLMs may only be used as an improved auto-completion mechanism, or for > repeated tasks (mechanical refactoring) that could potentially be completed > with a deterministic algorithm. > - Human-coordinated or uncoordinated (OpenClaw, etc) use of agents for > submission of contributions to the GDAL repository is banned. > - Any LLM usage must be indicated by ticket label, comment, or commit message > indication and account for what was written by whom/what. > - The contributing human author is ultimately responsible for every line of > code, comment, or mailing list interaction they initiate, and all of it is > subject to the project's :ref:`code_of_conduct`. > - The typical high verbosity of LLM code and text is actively discouraged. > More code is more code to maintain. High verbosity contribution (tickets, > code, messages, etc) will be seen as indication of LLM-generated content when > not labeled otherwise and may be ignored, closed, left unmerged, or removed > at maintainers' discretion. > > > I personally think a combination of GDAL policy + borrowing the "contribute > only what you understand" term from Godot's current policy (see > https://contributing.godotengine.org/en/latest/pull_requests/pull_request_guidelines.html#ai-assisted-contributions > could be a good step forward. Specifically this clause: > > Contribute only what you understand > Only submit code that you fully understand and are prepared to explain to a > maintainer. This especially applies if you implement the idea of another > person, copy code from elsewhere, or if you use AI to assist you with your > contribution. In all of these cases, you must disclose which part of your > submission wasn't fully authored by you. > > Thoughts? > > Nyall > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing [email protected] > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > -- Tim Sutton *Kartoza Cofounder*Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee *T *: +27(0) 87 809 2702 *E *: [email protected] *W* : kartoza.com *This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you * *have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying* *of the contents is prohibited.*
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
