What the Rules Say
The kernel's stance can be summed up as "not banned, but accountability rests with a person": AI assistance is allowed, but the submitter must understand and take responsibility for the code as if they'd hand-written it, and the legal meaning of the Signed-off-by isn't discounted just because a tool was involved; at the same time, substantive AI involvement must be disclosed so reviewers are informed. This is a pragmatic middle road—a blanket ban is unenforceable, and letting it run free would overwhelm the review system—so it anchors the fixed point on human responsibility: use whatever tools you like, but someone has to carry the blame.
Why the Kernel's Choice Matters
The Linux kernel is the supreme court of the open source world, and its contribution norms have long been copied wholesale by countless projects. A few details in this rule design are worth noting: it doesn't get bogged down in unresolved questions like "who owns the copyright of AI-written code," but uses the sign-off system to anchor legal responsibility on the submitter, sidestepping an undecidable debate; nor does it demand an unverifiable number like "what percentage was AI-generated." The vitality of a rule lies in being enforceable, and the kernel's approach is likely to become the de facto standard of the open source world.
via: Hacker News