On 2026-03-10 18:58:36, Ulrich Müller wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2026, Filip Kobierski wrote: > > > Maybe one could flag slop packages with a LICENSE variable that is not > > accepted by default? > > That would allow users to still have the final say in what can run on > > their Gentoo systems but would be aware that AI-SLOP license is > > suboptimal. > > Not sure if LICENSE would be the right tool for this. AI generated code > certainly touches legal aspects, but I think these are not at the core > of the issue.
I was going to suggest a LICENSE-based approach as well. Not everyone will want to avoid these packages for the same reasons, but tagging them with (say) LICENSE="dubious MIT" would be semantically accurate, and would not hinder further refinement. If the upstream repo might contain an algorithm plagiarised from a copy of TAoCP on libgen, then the license isn't "MIT" no matter what the Github sidebar says. What is it? Well... we don't know yet. It will probably take a few decades to iron out. In the meantime, it's dubious. Rejecting these packages for copyright reasons is then built-in. For non-copyright reasons, LICENSE="dubious" is a necessary condition that would make them easier to spot.
