Some changes to QEMU's code provenance policy with respect to AI-generated
content.

First of all, clarify the intended scope: the policy is not about
content generators, it is about generated content (patch 1).

Second, establish the exception process as what it is meant to be:
a friendly/welcoming discussion where a contributor explains what they
would like to use AI for, and consensus is reached on why it is credible
for them to claim DCO compliance.

To this end, also clarify that AI exceptions are a description and not an
override of DCO compliance.

While the RFC had a motivating example of exception, leave it out as
these improvements are useful on their own.

Paolo

Supersedes: <20250922113219.32122-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>

Paolo Bonzini (3):
  docs/code-provenance: clarify scope very early
  docs/code-provenance: make the exception process more prominent
  docs/code-provenance: AI exceptions are in addition to DCO

 docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

-- 
2.51.0