> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 23:53:44 +0300 > From: Jean Louis <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > > Sorry Eli, it seems you never got the point, and you keep asking what is > the purpose. > > I really do not doubt in none of developers as in their characters. > > You asked what is it about, so... > > - A commit was made that appears to be LLM-generated (beyond just the > commit message) > - The author self-certified it was not LLM-generated (but proprietary > Claude submitted the commit) > - This self-certification was accepted without any way to verify it > > This creates a situation where the policy (prohibiting LLM-generated > code) is unenforceable because there is no verification mechanism.
That's false: we've just enforced the policy by removing that commit. > Then you Eli then responds by questioning mu character and purpose, > while ignoring the procedural problem you raised yourself and keep > managing it. There's no procedural problem that I can see here. Yuan made a mistake and we fixed it. > I never said Yuan is not trustworthy or you. I said there is nothing you > can do to verify the claim, yet indication indicates it was proprietary > code that generated it. Once again, THAT CODE WAS REMOVED! > So you are trying to protect Emacs as software from the LLM generation > with the allegedly conflicting copyrights, and you miss to see that > there is vulnerable position of the project, to which I am pointing. > There is no boundary, or mean to control it. You got the honor system, > but in GNU project I simply can't believe in that honor system of > self-certification in that case where proprietary LLM Claude submitted > the commit message to Emacs. That commit was removed 2 days ago. So what is the problem now? > Let us say that Yuan or whoever else, submits commit with the > proprietary Claude, but code itself is written by hand. That is not > logical. He could submit the code as well by hand, it is few keys to do. > It is obvious that it is not logical, and so people will not believe it. I already responded to these unfounded claims. > Obviously you can't see what I am telling you, yet you should be first > to understand it. Perhaps the fact that I see no problem should urge you to rethink the whole issue. Is it possible that you are mistaken? --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
