On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 9:40 AM Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2026, 08:27 Richard Biener, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 8:51 PM Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2026, 19:03 Richard Biener, <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Am 29.07.2026 um 17:30 schrieb Arthur Cohen <[email protected]>: >> >> > >> >> > Hi Richard, >> >> > >> >> > What are the important LLM issues that you think the policy fails to >> >> > address? As the policy itself states, the it is expected to evolve and >> >> > feedback is welcome. The goal is to continuously improve it. >> >> >> >> The policy grounds its rejection of legally significant LLM contributions >> >> on legal issues (by means of naming). It does not cover the IMO much >> >> more severe issues of overwhelming reviewers and keeping GCC maintainable. >> > >> > >> > Such contributions are not allowed by the policy, so we don't need to burn >> > reviewer time on them, and we don't need to worry that those contributions >> > will make GCC unmaintainable. >> > >> > If the legal situation changes and somebody wants to argue for relaxing >> > the policy, they'll need to make a convincing case that it won't overwhelm >> > reviewers or lead to code nobody understands. Until then, such discussions >> > don't seem productive too me (but that doesn't mean they can't happen >> > anyway). >> > >> > >> > >> >> It also makes LLM assisted contributions by maintainers who might want >> >> to use LLMs to get to prototype stages fall into grey areas or even >> >> rejected. I realize the policy is not a discussion review document but >> >> what was the point of having the policy group when the outcome is just >> >> the obvious ‚legally unclear situation‘ statement? >> > >> > >> > Now at least it's written down and we can point to it as the policy. >> > Previously it was unclear whether this project cared about the legal >> > issues. >> >> It still leaves "legally significant" up to interpretation. When >> somebody posts a LLM [assisted] patch that is legally significant or >> when I let an LLM >> do a prototype to assess viability of an idea, is not any non-LLM >> implementation of the same solution (as vague as that is) a derivative >> work of >> a possibly infringing work? So is posting LLM produced patches to GCC >> able to DOS GCC development this way? > > > Is that different to posting non-GPL code?
Of course not. Richard. > > >> Similar for the allowed >> use of LLMs to analyze bugs or tooling. How can that be legally sound? >> >> Richard. >> >> > >> > As Arthur said, this isn't expected to be the final policy that lasts >> > forever. >> >
