On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 15:40, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 10:56:18AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
>
This draft option also applies to upstream code.
There is an important difference between GCC and us:
We are a collection of upstream sources in an ecosystem where usage of
AI-generated code is no longer rare, with our own code parts being
rather small compared to the upstream code we include.
The fundamental problem with all anti-AI proposals is that there are
good arguments against inclusion of AI-generated code at least for now,[1]
but the consequence of applying this also to upstream code in main would
not be workable.
This has been the main scope of my argument too: We simply can't allow
something with such unclear legal status for our tooling. For linux that
sip has unfortunately sailed, and we can't ban the kernel that we all
use.
Trying to apply such rules only to Debian-specific parts would have
consequences like banning AI-generated test cases under debian/tests/,
but the maintainer submitting this code upstream and then backporting
the same code would be fine.
This is a problem indeed, but if someone wants to cheat that way ...
[1] personally I would consider the unclear copyright status sufficient
100 % this. While I personally consider the resource usage more
important, the licensing issues are not clear at all.
The DFSG were instituted for a reason. Allowing code with such murky
licensing for our core tooling is IMO a direct violation of the DFSG.
best,
--
Matthias Geiger <werdahias>
Debian Developer -- KiCad Contributor
GPG: ECBEDBB607B9B2BE
