11 May
2026
11 May
'26
11:16 a.m.
IANAL, but the XSF IPR policy has some wording in it relevant in this
context. Specifically:
- §3.1 says that the author assigns ownership over the XEP to the XSF.
In recent case law, it was established that AI generated content lacks
human authorship. As such the author (referring to the human using the
AI) is unable to assign ownership, because they lack it themselves.
- §3.1 also says the XEP shall be copyrighted by the XSF. In recent
case law, it was found that AI generated content can not be
copyrighted.
- §4 mandates that the XEP carries certain legal notices, including a
copyright notice. As the XSF does not own any copyright on the AI
generated content (because it can't have copyright), such copyright
notice would be invalid.
- §4 also mandates that the XEP itself carries a notice that the XEP
was contributed in full conformance with the IPR policy.
To me this means that AI generated content that is not primarily
created by a human does not and can not comply with the IPR policy and
thus can neither be submitted by the author nor accepted by the XSF.
If we wanted to allow submission of AI generated XEPs, it would be a
board subject to adjust the IPR policy accordingly.
Marvin
On Mon, 2026-05-11 at 09:50 +0200, Goffi wrote:
Hello everybody,
I would like to bring a discussion on AI policy. We can't really
ignore
anymore that modern models have become very capable, and I suspect
that they
are used for spec authoring.
This raises, I believe, copyright issues: if someone use AI to redact
a whole
section of a spec, how can we be sure that it's not an existing specs
for some
other place, possibly under copyright, that is copied or paraphrased?
How can
an author guarantee that it's original work (hint: they can't)?
I think that there are 3 distinct uses:
1. As a light formatting/checking help, for instance to generate a
table from
a human written section, to correct the formulation of a sentence, or
to draft
an example. This is notably useful for non native English speakers.
2. As a help to search existing state of art on some feature, or any
kind of
data, without writing anything in a protoXEP.
3. As a way to generate whole sections.
Instinctively, and If we put aside ethical and ecological concerns
about LLMs,
I think that 1. and 2. are OK, and 3. should be forbidden. And in all
cases,
it should be disclosed.
I would like your feedback on this matter, in particular people with
legal
knowledge.
I would like to avoid a flamewar, I know that this topic is sensitive
and there
opinions are highly divided, please express your opinion calmly. The
fact is,
we can't ignore this anymore.
Should this be discussed with board or council?
Thanks.
Best,
Goffi