Add a position statement about LLM generated content
diff --git a/binutils/MAINTAINERS b/binutils/MAINTAINERS
index 59f1603..fff5543 100644
--- a/binutils/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/binutils/MAINTAINERS
@@ -233,6 +233,68 @@
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
