The GNU Binutils position on LLM generated content
[This policy is in binutils-gdb.git at binutils/MAINTAINERS.]
The GNU Binutils project is currently NOT accepting LLM generated patches.
This is because the copyright status of code generated by a LLM (Large Language Model) is currently unclear. The policy applies to all parts of the GNU Binutils including, but not limited to, source code, documentation and the testsuites.
There are however some exceptions to the policy:
- Using LLMs to assist in writing code is fine providing that the LLM does not actually generate code. So for example using an LLM to provide text to speech services or to search for published information is OK.
LLM generated code that is not legally significant is OK. As a rule of thumb, this means that trivial changes, such as spelling corrections, or small code formatting cleanups are fine.
Using an LLM to inspire or help create a patch might be OK. It is a question of whether LLM generated output eventually makes it into the patch. If it does, then the patch is unacceptable. (Unless it can be considered legally insignificant).
In addition all patch submissions must involve a human. Fully automated patch submission, whether by a bot, a script, or some other means is not acceptable. This is because only humans can sign a Developer Certificate of Origin or complete a FSF Copyright Assignment and one of these needs to be in place for every submission. The copyright assignment or DCO allows the GNU Binutils project to trust that the submitter is legally able to make the contribution and that the submission can be used under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see the COPYING3 file).
Footnotes
This policy is not set in stone. It may well be reviewed and changed in the future.
The policy uses the term LLM generated rather than A.I. generated as the latter could be misunderstood. Nevertheless the policy applies to any kind of machine generated contribution where the copyright status is unclear.
When submitting a non-legally-significant LLM generated change, it is encouraged to clearly indicate the use of the LLM. The identification could take the form of a line starting with the Generated-By: prefix which identifies the LLM used. For example:
Generated-By: GNU-LLM version 1.0
The reason for asking for this is to set a precedent. So in the future, if non-trivial LLM generated patches do become acceptable, the process of labeling them will already be a standard action.