Seconded (this GR needs a representative set of options)
Matthias Geiger <[email protected]> wrote on 22/07/2026 at 17:35:37+0200: > Hi all, > > What follows is a GR proposal to ban LLM contributions. > > It is time for Debian to make a statement regarding generative AI and LLM > usage. > Since this has been discussed in exhaustive detail on -private and -project, > the proposal follows below without any further discussion. > > > BEGIN PROPOSAL > > > Preamble > =========== > > This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written > with > the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI > tools. > > The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive): - Debian source packages > - Official Debian project software, such as lintian > - Debian web resources - Documentation and translations added by Debian > contributors > - Official communication from Debian > > It does not include: - Upstream projects using LLMs for development > - AI-related software > > > Rationale > =========== > > Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is crucial > to > Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. It is our belief that > widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude > that, > while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian > Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors. In practical terms, LLM > usage raises the following concerns: 1. Copyright LLM output has very > unclear legal status: it may be possible to copyright on its own merits, or > not; > it may be affected by all of the licenses and copyrights in the training data, > or not. Debian Policy and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing > and copyright[1][2]. Software and other contributions written conventionally > by > humans with unclear copyright or license status are not allowed in > Debian; > LLM output should not have a special exception to this. > 2. Quality LLM output has many well-known problems with > accuracy.[3][4][5] A LLM can never "know" if its output is correct > since it > merely produces syntactically likely combinations of the training data. > In some environments this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For > instance, > in packaging, each Debian source package is unique. Since packaging syntax > and best practices have changed over time, a LLM-produced package will > have a mixture of contents spanning the age of the archive, with watch > files > that do not work, overrides out of context, imaginary copyright, and will > generally be unfit for upload. A seasoned Debian contributor with > packaging expertise may find some limited usefulness here, but a new > contributor cannot, and would not know how to fix it. These same > quality > and accuracy concerns apply clearly to all of the areas listed in the scope > of this proposal above. > If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain experts who > never leave, this might not be an issue; however, > 3. Community Debian is a project that is more than just code: it > is > a community built on shared interests in free software and solving > technical problems. Debian intentionally grows this community > through > many means, and new contributors are always encouraged to join. > Allowing > LLM contributions breaks this. New contributors submitting LLM > output > for review places an unnecessary strain on the reviewer, which can lead > to burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent new contributors do not > actually learn and understand the details of Debian packaging or > processes, so they cannot come to replace a former burned out DD. 4. > Ethics LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as > whole by scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for > license, copyright, or even established > conventions such as robots.txt.[6] > This has had a major negative impact on Debian's public web resources, > effectively a large scale and perpetual Denial of Service attack on sites > that many users rely on. > As a consequence parts of our infrastructure were not reachable at all, and > JS-based checks had to be enabled. Many other projects were similarly > affected. Furthermore, LLM training consumes a staggering amount of > resources[7], and the user verification systems that we have been forced to > implement as protection waste resources as well. > This is blatant disregard for the internet as a public resource, wastes > system administrator time, and although individual LLM sessions do not > directly use massive resources or DoS the public web, the fact that > they > can be used at all is a direct result of these unethical behaviours by the > LLM companies. Debian has a Social Contract. [8] Our priorities are our > users > and free software. > Debian is Stable. [9] Users and organizations choose Debian because it is > reliable and secure. > > Debian is not here to generate as much code as possible requiring manual > review > by a shrinking number of human volunteers, or to package every piece of > software, or to rush new features, but these are what LLMs are used for. In > conclusion, allowing LLM contributions is contrary to the social contract and > the common cause of creating a free operating system with a focus on quality > and > stability. > > > Proposal > =========== > > In the interest of not eroding Debian's reputation or further damaging the > community, LLM-assisted contributions should be prohibited from inclusion in > Debian. Though our position is that LLM contributions are contrary to > documents > already ratified by Debian, in order to remove all doubt, we propose the > following addition to the Social Contract: 6. Works Created through the use of > Large Language Models (LLMs) > We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use or > assistance > of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools. Direct > contributions are > defined as packaging, native Debian software like lintian, documentation > and translations > written by Debian contributors, and official Debian web resources, etc. > Other categories > such as upstream projects written with LLM assistance may be included at a > later date. This ensures that Debian remains a stable, trusted, and > reliable operating > system, and protects the interests of the Debian volunteers who make it > possible. > Possible Issues > =========== > > Other projects exploring similar decisions have elicited a common reply: "How > will you enforce a ban on LLM contributions?" > While enforcement could be a challenge, this is a statement of intent by the > Debian community, and we trust this community to adhere to it in good faith. > > END PROPOSAL > > > Citations > =========== > [1] > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#copyright-considerations > [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > [3] > https://web.archive.org/web/20240614004123/https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/10/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/ > [4] > https://web.archive.org/web/20250328154700/https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html#dives-cot > [5] > https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openais-sam-altman-tells-salesforces-marc-benioff-that-ai-hallucinations-are-more-feature-than-bug-1c035c52 > [6] https://lwn.net/Articles/1008897/ > [7] https://tech-insider.org/ai-data-center-power-crisis-2026/ > [8] https://www.debian.org/social_contract > [9] > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/pr01.en.html#_what_is_debian > > > Disclaimers > =========== > - Citations are for background information only and do not reflect an > endorsement of specific websites. > - Some ideas and wording were derived from the sources below. > > > Sources > =========== > GNOME discussion: > https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327 > (CC0) > Gentoo AI policy: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy > Codeberg AI policy: > https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434 > > This document was written by Matthias Geiger <werdahias> and Jesse Rhodes > <sney> with input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language > model assistance. > > > > best,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
