Matthias Geiger wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:50, Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]> wrote: >>Your message was not signed. Could you please sign it? >> >> >>Kurt >> > > > Hi all, > > What follows is a GR proposal to ban LLM contributions.
Seconded. > 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 > - Upstream patches/security fixes etc. > > > 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. > > > Updated, formatted and signed. > > best,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
