Add a position statement about LLM generated content

binutils/MAINTAINERS

@@ -233,6 +233,68 @@ The details of the Developer's Certificate or Origin can be found here:
        
   https://developercertificate.org/
 
+    --------- LLM Generated Patches ---------
+
+The GNU Binutils project is currently *NOT* accepting LLM generated patches.
+
+This is because the copyright status of code generated by a LLM (Large
+Language Model [1]) is currently unclear.  The policy applies to all
+parts of the GNU Binutils including, but not limited to, source code,
+documentation and the testsuites.
+
+There are however some exceptions to the policy:
+
+  * Using LLMs to assist in writing code is fine providing that the
+    LLM does not actually generate code.  So for example using an
+    LLM to provide text to speech services or to search for published
+    information is OK.
+
+  * LLM generated code that is not "legally significant"[2] is OK.
+    As a rule of thumb, this means that trivial changes, such as
+    spelling corrections, or small code formatting cleanups are fine.
+
+Using an LLM to inspire or help create a patch might be OK.  It is a
+question of whether LLM generated output eventually makes it into the
+patch.  If it does, then the patch is unacceptable.  (Unless it can
+be considered legally insignificant).
+
+When submitting a non-legally-significant LLM generated change, it is
+still necessary to clearly indicate the use of the LLM.  The
+identification should take the form of a line starting with the
+"Generated-By: " prefix which identifies the LLM used.  For example:
+
+  Generated-By: GNU-LLM version 1.0
+
+In addition all patch submissions must involve a human.  Fully
+automated patch submission, whether by a bot, a script, or some other
+means is not acceptable.  This is because only humans can sign a
+Developer Certificate of Origin or complete a FSF Copyright Assignment
+and one of these needs to be in place for every submission.
+
+The copyright assignment or DCO allows the GNU Binutils project to
+trust that the submitter is legally able to make the contribution
+and that the submission can be used under the terms of the GNU General
+Public License (see the COPYING3 file).
+
+Footnotes:
+
+This policy is not set in stone.  It may well be reviewed and changed
+in the future.
+
+The policy uses the term "LLM generated" rather than "A.I. generated"
+as the latter could be misunderstood.  See [3] for more details.
+Nevertheless the policy applies to any kind of machine generated
+contribution where the copyright status is unclear.
+
+The reason for requiring trivial LLM generated patches to be labelled
+is to set a precedent.  In the future, if non-trivial patches become
+acceptable, the standard of labelling LLM submissions should already
+be in place.
+
+[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model
+[2]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant
+[3]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#ArtificialIntelligence
+
     --------- Branch Checkins ---------
 
 If a patch is approved for check in to the mainline sources, it can