Hi, Andreas Enge <[email protected]> writes:
> Am Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:06:22PM +0900 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >> "cannot be considered free software" is preposterous, no? We have >> doubts, but no certainty as of now. For our own source code, it seems >> wise to avoid the uncertainty creeping in, but for packages... I think >> given the gray area, and the low risk of it (we can easily remove such >> packages if/when it becomes clear that they aren't free software) > > This is a claim that I think is not correct. In a sense, we can only go > forward. Of course *theoretically*, we can take out any package; but > things become complicated as soon as dependents enter the game (and it > has taken a bit of effort to work on the question for GCD 006, and each > and every package removal means additional work). And also think of > updates - the vibe coding could happen between version X-1 and version X > of a package. It may be very difficult to downgrade (already our user > tools are not designed for this). The assumption that make my statement reasonable, I think, is that these newly vibe-coded things wouldn't creep deep down in the dependency graph -- at least for now. Leaf packages are easy to remove, and if they cause a problem with the GNU FSDG, we could even fast track the process of removing them. > Just imagine that we decided we wanted to roll back the Python 3.11 to > 3.12 transition - I think it is close to impossible. What is the alternative, though -- to stay on Python 3.11 forever? In both cases the situation would be pretty bad, if it does turn out that software including vibe-coded output can no longer be considered free software (a big assumption that I doubt will materialize, at least for cases like Python where there's a large historical code base which is integrating vibe-coded bits (CC0 + X license => X license for the combined work). -- Thanks, Maxim
