Hi, On 2026-05-25 at 21:31:28+02:00, André Batista wrote: > 5. Patches that were produced with Assistive technologies > MAY be accepted by Commiters only on the 'gnu/packages' > sub-hierarchy, at their discretion. > 6. Users proposing patches with the use of Assistive Technologies > assume complete and sole responsibility to any copyright, > license or patent claims that third parties may hold to it. > Reviewers and Committers are not expected to clear > the legal situation on behalf of those proposing them > and their acceptance of any given patch MUST NEVER be interpreted > as legal aval.
Blaming the contributor would not free the project from the liability of distributing infringements and their future derivations. I fail to notice the difference between the project being aware of a non-zero chance of infringement and defer the reposibility on the contributor, and the contributor being aware of the same infringement and defer such reponsibility to the SaaSS provider. Furthermore, while the majority of gnu/packages are unlikely to be copyrightable, it does not mean all of them are and all additions to them will be. My concern within the current pledges in the GCD draft is the 15-line threshold which IMHO does not apply well to Scheme, which can be put aside for now until Denis's question on gnu-prog-discuss is answered. The pledge quoted here took it to another level by greenlighting all sizes of LLM outputs to be incorporated into Guix, which is something I definitely cannot live with. There is practically zero inclusion of LLM output in Guix codebase. Attempts to introduce legal, technical, and moral risks, etc. to the project should preach for acceptance, not the other way around. On 2026-05-27 at 19:04+02:00, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2026 17:23:53 +0900 Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > > Seconded. We only need to reach a concensus regarding > > the course of action, not the reason behind it. > > [...] the reason a given contribution is refused is important [...] > > So basically we manage to justify rationally that we don't want LLMs > and that makes it clear for everybody without having to agree with > every single reason. > > And here even if someone doesn't agree with a single reason > or a few of them it is clear enough. Agreed. My problem is the current draft poses _here are some opinions A, B, C, and therefore we take actions X, Y, Z_. Consenting with the document means I have to adopt A, B, C into my belief system, which is a strange ask even if I already agree with most of them. I expect the document to instead say _we do X, Y, Z, which can be rationalized by some to all of A, B, C_. On 2026-05-27 at 19:04+02:00, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > [...] it would allow us to reconsider later on if all the reasons > are fixed and that in overall we can prove that some future LLMs > can make the world a better place. GCD needn't be future-proof, there's always space for another GCD if/when that happens. Best wishes, Phong
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
