Mastodawn

RE: https://hachyderm.io/@nedbat/116133445557306539

I got Ned's point, but I don’t think we can treat Claude (or similar tools) at the same level as a person.

We've never added tools (e.g. isort, Black, Ruff, ...) as co-authors of commits, even when they generated 100% of a commit.

Listing Claude as a co-author of a commit put it the same level as a person, but it's a tool.

The author of a commit is a person responsible for the code they submit, without shifting that responsibility to the tool, or worse, to the project maintainers.

#FOSS #AI

Show thread

Paolo Melchiorre Feb 26

After thinking a bit more about Ned’s post and the discussion here, it really felt like the right moment to make expectations around AI-assisted contributions clearer in Django.

So I opened a proposal to add an AI/LLM contribution policy.

The idea isn’t to police tools, but to keep responsibility clearly human and reduce ambiguity for contributors and maintainers.

If you’re interested, have a look and share your thoughts:
https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/proposal-add-an-ai-llm-contribution-policy-to-django/44298

Proposal: Add an AI/LLM Contribution Policy to Django

If you use AI-generated content, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. When coding, if you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on the entire codebase. This means copyright notices and even licenses that folks put on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain. Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB1...

Django Forum

Show thread

Timo Zimmermann Feb 26

@paulox I’ll try to find time to write a more nuanced response, but one thing I think cannot be ignored is this https://zomglol.wtf/@jamie/116059523957674208

Jamie Gaskins (@[email protected])

Attached: 2 images If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*. This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain. Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

zomglol

Show thread

Jeff Triplett Feb 26

@fallenhitokiri @paulox Folks, just a reminder not to take legal advice from people from the internet who are not lawyers. They very highly highlighted and clipped three summaries from three cases which have no bearing on the recommendation.

Check out https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf and you'll see that the claim is largely 💩

They recommend not allowing 100% generated project copyright, but our existing laws allow everything else per their guidance/recommendation. Read the PDF.

Show thread

Paolo Melchiorre Feb 26

@webology @fallenhitokiri Hi Jeff, is this comment in the forum related to this branch of the thread?
https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/proposal-add-an-ai-llm-contribution-policy-to-django/44298/8

Proposal: Add an AI/LLM Contribution Policy to Django

Django Forum

Show thread

Jeff Triplett

@paulox @fallenhitokiri le sigh. That felt gross.

Show thread

Jeff Triplett Feb 26

@paulox @fallenhitokiri When I meet with our Trademark lawyer/law firm on Monday, I plan to mention this too. While Trademark and Copyright are two different things, I suspect they come up quite a bit in their watercooler conversations.