Re: Super Simple AI Policy proposal

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.

Regards,
Vlad