ASF 法律委员会发布贡献者生成式 AI 指南（中英文对照）

作者：Roman Shaposhnik

翻译：刘天栋 Ted

除非你在过去一年左右的时间里一直生活在岩石之下，否则你很可能已经听说过很多关于生成式人工智能如何快速发展并正在迅速改变我们所熟知的软件行业的事情。虽然猜测 GitHub 的 Copilot 等工具何时会让我们所有程序员失业^[1]是件有趣的事，但说到开源软件，还有一个更紧迫的问题：对知识产权的影响。

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year or so, chances are that you’ve heard a lot about how generative AI is rapidly evolving and is rapidly changing the software industry as we know it. And while it is fun to speculate about when exactly tools like GitHub’s Copilot will render all us programmers jobless, when it comes to Open Source software; there’s a much more immediate concern at hand: intellectual property ramifications.

虽然我们并没有过多地考虑过这个问题，但归根结底，我们每一个为开源软件做出贡献的人都是在行使个人权利，将自己的劳动成果授权他人使用，或者捐献一些我们自己没有创造但有权分享的东西。事实上，任何为 Apache 软件基金会 300 多个活跃项目做出贡献的提交者，都是在明确签署了个人贡献者许可协议^[2](ICLA)之后才这样做的：

While we don’t really think about this too much, at the end of the day every one of us contributing to the open source software is doing so by either exercising our personal right to license out the fruits of our own labor OR by donating something that we didn’t create ourselves but have the right to share. In fact, any committer contributing to any of the Apache Software Foundation’s 300+ active projects is doing so only after explicitly signing an ICLA agreement that says:

"您声明您的每项贡献都是您的原创作品（关于代表他人提交的作品，请参见 ICLA 第 7 节）"

“You represent that each of Your Contributions is Your original creation (see section 7 for submissions on behalf of others)”

如果你只是一时兴起输入了一页代码，那么 "你的原创 "的标准就很容易理解，但除此之外，界限很快就会变得非常模糊。即使在生成式人工智能出现之前，开源开发人员也在为这样的问题而挣扎："如果我的集成开发环境（IDE）补全了我没有输入的代码--那行代码真的是我原创的吗？或者 "如果我最终上了 StackOverflow，并从那里的一个线程中，得到了如何处理一个特别棘手的问题的、看起来很琐碎的一行代码--我可以把它纳入（我的程序）吗？或者（我个人的最爱）"如果我编码的唯一方法是进行结对编程--那么从那个双头四臂的怪兽（译者注：意指结对编程的双方合体）那里出来的代码是谁的原创呢？

The criteria for what is “your original creation” is pretty easy to understand if you literally just typed a page of code in a fit of inspiration, but aside from that the line gets pretty blurry pretty quickly. Even before the advent of generative AI, open source developers were struggling with questions like “what if my IDE provided a code completion hint that I didn’t type – was that line of code really my original creation?” Or “what if I ended up on StackOverflow and got a trivial-looking one-liner of how to handle a particularly gnarly issue from one of the threads there – am I allowed to include that?” Or (my personal favorite) “what if the only way I can code is by doing pair-programming – whose original creation is the code that comes out of that two-headed, four-armed beast?”

现在，我想说的是，就像大多数与知识产权管理有关的事情一样，这类问题的答案是 "视情况而定"，而就 ASF 的观点而言，我们试图在出现这类 "视情况而定 "的问题时将其记录在案^[3]，这样做并不过分。然而，对于生成式人工智能，ASF 的法律委员会认为，零敲碎打的方法并不能真正解决问题；这不仅是因为该主题非常重要，还因为围绕该主题的整个法律体系的飞速发展。

Now, I don’t think it would be too much of a spoiler to say, as with most things that have to do with intellectual property management, the answer to these types of questions is “it depends” and as far as ASF’s view goes we try to document these kinds of “it depends” as they come along. With generative AI, however, ASF’s Legal Committee felt that doing a piecemeal approach wasn’t really cutting it; not only because of how important the topic is, but also how quickly the entire body of law around it is evolving.

因此，专门的 ASF 生成工具指南^[4]页面应运而生了。

Thus a dedicated ASF Generative Tooling Guidance page was born.

如果您是 ASF 的贡献者，计划使用任何生成工具（无论是否由人工智能驱动），我们强烈建议您阅读本文档，并遵循其中的指导。我们也在寻求对我们建议的反馈。提供此类反馈的最便捷方式是联系 ASF 法律委员会：[e-mail]

If you’re an ASF contributor who plans to use any generative tool (AI-powered or not), we strongly encourage you to read through this document and we strongly recommend to follow its guidance. We are also seeking feedback on our recommendations. The easiest way is provide such feedback is to contact ASF’s Legal Committee at [e-mail]

最后，如果编写本指南不是社区的努力，那就不是真正的开源。我要感谢 ASF 法律委员会的所有成员，特别是 Henri Yandell，感谢他们在可操作建议和法律严谨性之间取得平衡的工作和奉献。在另一个层面上，我也要感谢 Linux 基金会的领导力，它并没有赶鸭子上架，而是鼓励所有不同的开源基金会（包括 ASF）开始用共同的术语来思考这个领域，并就彼此观点接近的政策达成一致。请关注这一领域，你会发现今年会出现很多类似的指导意见。

Finally, it wouldn’t be true open source if producing this guidance wasn’t a community effort. I would like to thank all the members of the ASF’s Legal Committee and especially Henri Yandell for their work and dedication in striking the balance between actionable advice and legalistic rigor. At a different level, I’d like to also recognize Linux Foundation’s leadership in not so much herding us cats, but rather encouraging all the various Open Source Foundations (the ASF included) to start thinking about this area in common terms and agreeing on policies that wouldn’t be too far from each other. Watch this space, you will see a lot of similar pieces of guidance emerging this year.

注：

[1]https://hackaday.com/2023/03/08/will-a-i-steal-all-the-code-and-take-all-the-jobs/

[2]https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf

[3]https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

[4]https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html

原文链接：

https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/asf-legal-committee-issues-generative-ai-guidance-to-contributors

---

作者：Roman Shaposhnik

Apache 软件基金会法律事务副总裁

相关阅读



拯救开源：《网络韧性法案》即将带来的悲剧

如果您有新的想法，欢迎加入开源雨林交流群，一起探讨。

小助手微信：osrainforest（添加时请备注“交流群”）

---

 什么是开源雨林？

开源雨林围绕开源通识、开源使用、开源贡献三大方面构建知识体系，愿把长期积累的经验系统化分享给企业，在团队、机制、项目三方面提供合作，推动各企业更高效地使用开源、贡献开源，提升全行业开源技术与应用水平。 

开源雨林的内容已开源，并托管在 https://github.com/opensource-rainforest/osr ，欢迎通过 Pull Request 的形式贡献内容，通过 Issue 的形式展开讨论，共同维护开源雨林的内容。