[SPARK-44782][INFRA] Adjust PR template to Generative Tooling Guidance recommendations

[zero323]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR adds Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? section to the PR template.

Why are the changes needed?

To reflect recommendations of the ASF Generative Tooling Guidance.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

Manual inspection.

[zero323]

cc @zhengruifeng FYI

[zhengruifeng]

I guess this should be documented in https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html instead of PR template?

cc @HyukjinKwon @gatorsmile @srowen

[srowen]

It should be in both places.

It's interesting. The typical CONTRIBUTING.md text that we have says, "When you contribute code, you affirm that the contribution is your original work", which seems at odds with the ASF guidance. I assume we are counting AI-assisted code as original work.

[zero323]

I guess this should be documented in https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html instead of PR template?

@zhengruifeng As per linked document:

When providing contributions authored using generative AI tooling, a recommended practice is for contributors to indicate the tooling used to create the contribution. This should be included as a token in the source control commit message, for example including the phrase “Generated-by: ”.

So, as I read this, it is recommended, although not required, to keep it in the commit message. If so, and we follow the advice, PR template is the place to put it.

[zero323]

It's interesting. The typical CONTRIBUTING.md text that we have says, "When you contribute code, you affirm that the contribution is your original work", which seems at odds with the ASF guidance. I assume we are counting AI-assisted code as original work.

@srowen I am not a lawyer, so please take whatever I say with a grain of salt. The current interpretation seems to be that the generated content is not considered to be work within the meaning of the copyright law. So "work" in this meaning is only what a human does with the output.

This position seems to be echoed by the ASF policy and the U.S. Copyright guidance it links to. It is also consistent with the informal opinions I got from the Polish Patent Office.

How we are supposed to judge if a given human contribution is sufficient for inclusion of the patch in the project without weakening ASF copyright claims is a mystery to me. Not to even mention the evaluation of the terms of service of any tool that contributors decide to use.

I have a gut feeling that at this point, using generative AI for content creation within a public project is a serious liability with little to gain, but given the lack of response on the dev list, following the ASF recommendations is the least we should do.

[srowen]

Merged to master (the failure can't be related)