On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 12:22:36AM +0000, Sam James wrote: > Filip Kobierski <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi Michał, > > > > The issue you described is real and widespread. > > > > 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. > > Then I imagine the problem would be in marking packages as such... > > Yes, that's the big job. > > > Also the name of the "LICENSE"; AI-SLOP seems in-line with Gentoo's > > approach, alas I in my opinion is unprofessional. Plain AI does not really > > sound discouraging. Naming is a secondary issue though. > > > > What do you think about that? > > Do you have an alternative proposal? > > Also, while I'm not sure how I feel about the name myself: is it really > unprofessional to call it out, when one may regard the behaviour of such > projects as > grossly unprofessional? > > sam
Maybe call it "AI-TAINTED" (whether as a "LICENSE" modifier or a metadata tag), akin to how the Linux kernel notifies the user if a module was loaded with an incompatible license. Perhaps this naming would also simultaneously reflect both the dubious licensing and potential code quality issues. Zoltan
