On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 14:05, Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 12:32, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I do not think that anyone knows how to demonstrate "clarity of the > > > copyright status in relation to training". > > > > Yes; to me this is the whole driving force behind the policy. > > > > > On the other hand, AI tools can be used as a natural language refactoring > > > engine for simple tasks such as modifying all callers of a given function > > > or even less simple ones such as adding Python type annotations. > > > These tasks have a very low risk of introducing training material in > > > the code base, and can provide noticeable time savings because they are > > > easily tested and reviewed; for the lack of a better term, I will call > > > these "tasks with limited or non-existing creative content". > > > > Does anybody know how to demonstrate "limited or non-existing > > creative content", which I assume is a standin here for > > "not copyrightable" ? > > That was something we aimed to intentionally avoid specifying in the > policy. It is very hard to define it in a way that will be clearly > understood by all contributors.
> TL;DR: I don't think we should attempt to define whether the boundary > is between copyrightable and non-copyrightable code changes. Well, this is why I think a policy that just says "no" is more easily understandable and followable. As soon as we start defining and granting exceptions then we're effectively in the position of making judgements and defining the boundary. -- PMM
