RFC: The Binutils and LLM generated patches

[Jose E. Marchesi]

> Hi Guys,
>
>   I think that it is time that the GNU Binutils project had a position
>   on whether or not it will accept LLM generated content.  I am
>   proposing the attached text as a description of the project's standing
>   on this issue, and I am interested to hear your comments.

FWIW, I thik this is a good policy.

>   My plan is to add this text - or rather whatever final version we
>   reach - to the binutils/README file and the Contributors page on the
>   binutils wiki.  I am also wondering if we should have a file similar
>   to the binutils/SECURITY.txt file.  But if so, what name should we use?
>
>   The proposed text also invents two new tags for LLM generated
>   contributions:  Generated-By:  and  LLM-Query:  I just pulled these
>   out of thin air, so feel to suggest better ones, or tell me that they
>   are pointless.

If these tags are to be used only for trivial/non-copyrightable changes,
as I think/hope the policy establishes, I personally see no point in
having these tags.  Trivial changes are trivial regardless of how they
are composed, so who cares whether a LLM was involved in it?

If I create a patch that removes trailing whitespaces in a file using
sed, or a patch that renames a variable in the whole project using
coccinelle, Generated-By would also apply to them.  Still, we don't feel
the need to do so.

> Cheers
>   Nick
>
>
>       The GNU Binutils project is currently
>       *NOT* accepting LLM generated patches.
>
> This is because the copyright status of LLM generated code is
> currently unclear.  The policy applies to all parts of the GNU
> Binutils including, but not limited to, 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 for translations is OK.  So is using an LLM to provide text
>     to speech services or to search for information, and so on.
>
>   * LLM generated code that is not "legally significant"[1] 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).
>
> If a patch submission *does* contain LLM code then this must be
> clearly indicated.  The identification should take the form of a line
> starting with the "Generated-By: " prefix which identifies the LLM
> used and a line starting with "LLM-Query: " which shows the query
> given to the LLM.  For example:
>
>   Generated-By: GNU-LLM verson 1.0
>   LLM-Query: Create a program to solve all GNU problems
>
> Also please note that when submitting a patch to the GNU Binutils
> project you must either use the Developer Certificate of Origin[2] or
> else have completed an FSF Copyright Assignment.  Either way however,
> your submission is an implicit statement that you have the right to
> submit the patch, including any necessary copyright management.
>
>
> 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 later could be misunderstood.  See [3] for more details.
>
> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant
> [2]: https://developercertificate.org/
> [3]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#ArtificialIntelligence