Lack of clarity in new Generative Tooling page

[bproffitt]

This page was created without M&P review, and there is a list in it that is not clear. Specifically:

1. The terms and conditions of the generative AI tool do not place any restrictions on use of the output that would be inconsistent with the Open Source Definition (e.g., ChatGPT’s terms are inconsistent).
2. At least one of the following conditions is met:
   1. The output is not copyrightable subject matter (and would not be even if produced by a human)
   2. No third party materials are included in the output
   3. Any third party materials that are included in the output are being used with permission (e.g., under a compatible open source license) of the third party copyright holders and in compliance with the applicable license terms
3. A contributor obtain reasonable certainty that conditions (b) or (c) are met if the AI tool itself provides sufficient information about materials that may have been copied, or from code scanning results
   1. E.g., AWS CodeWhisperer recently added a feature that provides notice and attribution

Lists like this should typically be bulleted, since they are non-sequential. BUT, in step 3, it references "conditions (b) or (c)". Where are those conditions? This list? In which case, this list should be numbered, but in the proper format. If another list, then the other list should be properly linked/referenced.

[hen]

Is M&P review a requirement for new pages? I'm out of touch.

Thanks for the (b) and (c) report. That's a case of markdown doing things differently than my pre-markdown draft; i.e. (b) changed to (ii) etc. I'll fix to 2(ii) etc.

[bproffitt]

M&P is responsible for all content on apache.org. We're not planning to block anything; mostly we want to ensure we don't have page sprawl, which we just cleaned up. An edit pass would not hurt anyone, either. :)

We are going to post revised process instructions soon.