jrjsmrtn/ai-contribution-policies · knowledge
Bundle OKF 0.2 · 5 conceitos · jrjsmrtn/ai-contribution-policies
Open source Repository Open in the app JSON README (API)
About
# Index
Bundle root.
## Concepts
| Title | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| [How open source treats AI-authored contributions](overview.md) | Practice | The read-through map — the shapes a policy takes, the axes each one decides... |
## Subdirectories
- [distributions/](distributions/index.md)
- [foundations/](foundations/index.md)
- [mechanisms/](mechanisms/index.md)
- [projects/](projects/index.md)
- [vendors/](vendors/index.md)
Details
- Kind
- OKF bundles
- Topic
- Maps, weather & travel
- Publisher
- jrjsmrtn
- Origin
- okf_github
- Category
- dados
- Version
- 0.2
- Last push
- 2026-09-09T00:18:05Z
- Repository state
- ativo
- License
- CC-BY-4.0
- Added
- 2026-09-08 09:04:14
- Updated
- 2026-09-10 09:01:57
- Origin id
jrjsmrtn/ai-contribution-policies:knowledge/index.md
README
# ai-contribution-policies How open-source organisations treat **AI-authored contributions**, as an OKF bundle. Knowledge only — the gates that check it and the decisions that shaped it live in the meta-project this sits in. > **Curated, not exhaustive — and that is deliberate.** 190+ organisations have published AI > contribution policies. Enumerating them is not the goal and completeness is not claimed. Records > are chosen for **foundations first** (they set defaults for many projects at once), then > **novel reasoning**, then **what the consuming tools actually encounter**. > > Nothing here was imported from a prior survey. Every record was read from the organisation's own > page, because the survey this replaces was consistently wrong in one direction — it dropped the > qualifier that decides what a contributor should do. Five projects it filed as "complete ban" > each turn out to carry a route: a revisitable decision, a named approver, a documented exceptions > process. **The exceptions are the operative part.** Run `okf list knowledge` for what is actually in here. This file deliberately quotes no count — a hand-written total is the kind of claim that goes stale silently, which is the failure the bundle exists to prevent. ## What is in here One record per organisation, answering the question a contributor has **before** starting work: *what does this project's policy say about AI-assisted contributions, and where is that written down?* Every record carries its `sources`, who verified it and when, and a `stale_after` date. Filed by **what the organisation is** — distribution, foundation, project, vendor — never by what its policy currently says. Stance is the volatile attribute this bundle exists to track; filing by stance would mean re-filing a record every time the fact it records changes. ## What is not in here - **Procedure** — how to check a project's requirements before contributing. That is the `analyze-project` skill. - **Design guidance** — when and why a project should adopt a policy of its own. That is the *AI Contribution Policy Pattern* in the pattern language. - **Supply-chain mechanics** — licensing, provenance and disclosure generally. Those are the `software-supply-chain-landscape` bundle's, referenced rather than restated. ## Reading it `knowledge/` is the bundle root. Start at [`knowledge/index.md`](knowledge/index.md); the read-through map is [`knowledge/overview.md`](knowledge/overview.md), and [`knowledge/log.md`](knowledge/log.md) records what changed when. ```bash okf validate knowledge # conformance okf lint knowledge # recommended fields and style okf search knowledge --tag prohibited ``` ## Licence CC BY 4.0 for the knowledge, CC0-1.0 for dotfiles — see `REUSE.toml`. Attribution is what the upstream sources ask for, and what the `sources` field does structurally.