On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 6:37 AM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Guix! > > Many of us got lost with the discussions and incremental changes made to > GCD 008. I invite y’all to take a fresh look at version 2 of this GCD: > > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/src/commit/393162a2f98b109d7f1062e72ac40641dc8db486/008-human-crafting.md
Thanks for your work here, Ludo'. I do think we are converging towards consensus, and my primary concern is that the GCD be sufficiently expressive so that no one is surprised during the implementation. How is "legally significant" being used? The GNU maintainer docs section referenced in the GCD begins with "if you maintain an FSF-copyrighted package, certain legal procedures are required when incorporating legally significant changes written by other people" [0]. My understanding is that Guix is not FSF-copyrighted. The reasons given (change of license and standing to sue) are not applicable to public domain contributions. The next subsection (directly linked in the GCD) states "keep in mind, however, that a series of minor changes by the same person can add up to a significant contribution. What counts is the total contribution of the person; it is irrelevant which parts of it were contributed when". I read that to mean that multiple contributions which are separately non-copyrightable may become legally significant when considered in aggregate. Harry Potter was written one public domain word at a time. The pledge commitments include the "will not use nor encourage use of genAI" but the policy lists exceptions. How to reconcile this? How are we defining "encourage use"? I would think that all acceptable contributions to the project could be discussed and encouraged. Regarding the policy on interaction, I think there is consensus on keeping the human "in the loop" but "copying text provided by genAI as answers or explanations in a discussion" is not "removing the human from the loop". And "direct interaction" precludes genAI actions requested by the user. I think the intent here is that we should not be pushing unsolicited requests from genAI to the user. What is the purpose of the disclosure policy? Anyone wishing to avoid GenAI can tag and filter their contributions as "pure". Is the disclosure meant to be an "Assisted-by: harness (vendor/model)" trailer in the git commit? I would love to see Guix adopt more descriptive commit messages explaining why changes were made, but I think as-is this disclosure policy will just be noise. The motivation section remains unchanged despite the concerns and suggestions from Simon and others. [0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html
