Hi, I was asked to make mails shorter[1], so this is the most important part of [2].
In the GCD 008 V2[3] we have: > Contributions produced in whole or in part by genAI MAY be accepted > provided the changes are not [“legally > significant”](https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html), (1) This is taken outside of context[4] and it could be wrong. Taking something out of context is a huge no-go for me. (2) GNU might have a policy with similar goals in a few month[5]. And we (or binutils?) were asked to wait a few months[5]. I missed that earlier[5]. If you still want to go at it, we could modify it as: > Short contributions produced in whole or in part by genAI MAY be > accepted provided that they are compatible with the GNU rules about > that which should be published in a few months and that will have > been informed with lawyers input. Personally I have very strong bias for unity as it strengthen us and enable us to have bigger impact, lower contribution costs. So whatever we do we should try to be compatible with GNU (else it would be messy). I would also strongly encourage to be compatible with "The Software Freedom Conservancy's LLM-backed generative AI recommendations"[7] and to reference them if possible. These recommendations were posted around the 18 June so the v1 of the GCD probably predates it. Things are moving really fast, so it would also be a good idea to take all that slow and do it well instead of having to deal with the mess later on. Even conservancy advocated for taking time and doing things well when talking about their recommendations. References: ----------- [1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-06/msg00226.html [2]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-06/msg00224.html [3]https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/raw/commit/393162a2f98b109d7f1062e72ac40641dc8db486/008-human-crafting.md [4]This was verified by asking in gnu-prog-discuss in the "6.2 Legally Significant Changes in gnu.org/prep/maintain and LLMs" thread. The answer was that "We drew those up assuming all code was written by people." [5]I'm unsure if it's me that did a mistake or if that was in the new mails in this thread. If I messed up I'm really sorry. [6]"I would like to ask them to postpone their decision a few months so they can see the policy we arrive at after consulting lawyers. I would like that policy to include exceptions for short contributions, but I don't _know_ yet what lawyers will have to say about that." I'm unsure if it was for Guix or binutils though but the context is the same for both cases (binutils also reference the "legally significant" in the same way and they now know it's wrong). [7]https://lwn.net/Articles/1078521/#Comments Denis.
pgpTjXRPVlVgv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
