The GNU Compiler Collection will reject copyright-significant contributions derived from LLM output, with limited exceptions for trivial changes and test cases.
It does not follow that merely looking at or altering the generated code makes it acceptable. By the rules that have been adopted, a contributor cannot take substantial implementation produced by an LLM, clean it up manually, and then treat the resulting patch as if it had been originally written by them.
I wonder how they intend to enforce this one. Raw LLM output will trigger some kind of “Spidey sense” for anyone woo has seen enough of it. But I don’t know how I would tell manually cleaned up LLM output apart from manually written original code
I have an impression that this is some legal rhetoric device that is intended to be used in courts in case there are copyright infringement claims. By saying that they don’t accept such contributions they probably can make it a clear legal responsibility of the one who submitted the code and not the GCC project as legal entity. At least that’s how I see it, but I’m not an expert in this topic.
I wonder how they intend to enforce this one. Raw LLM output will trigger some kind of “Spidey sense” for anyone woo has seen enough of it. But I don’t know how I would tell manually cleaned up LLM output apart from manually written original code
I have an impression that this is some legal rhetoric device that is intended to be used in courts in case there are copyright infringement claims. By saying that they don’t accept such contributions they probably can make it a clear legal responsibility of the one who submitted the code and not the GCC project as legal entity. At least that’s how I see it, but I’m not an expert in this topic.
I feel like this is a case of xkcd 810
Eh, it’s still a copyright violation risk to the project