> I'm interested in what the FSF and their lawyers will have to say about > it.
Legal aspects are relevant (is LLM code GPL compatible ? can it be copyrighted ?), but at this point I’m mostly concerned about practical matters. In 2025 we already have experience with how it precisely turns out when introducing LLM generated text in the loop: we have software projects (neomacs), other software communities, but not only. The publishing of paper and articles, specially the review process, is highly impacted by LLM use. Other domains can similarly be an inspiration on what to expect in Guix when opening the door to LLM content. > I think it's unavoidable that this kind of LLM usage happens in the > community (which mainstream search engine doesn't show some LLM-produced > summary these days?), and I think a good thing we can do is ask from our > contributors to be transparent about it, by adding a disclaimer when > they've used an LLM to author their changes. It could be just a box to > check in the PR template, or some git trailer, or both. This is precisely my point, and how it will probably end-up when legislators realise all the drawbacks of such a way of doing things. C.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
