Hello, Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> skribis:
> Thanks for rewriting. I still want to point out that this statement > somehow reads like an energy intending or willing to split the > community—which I find alienating. Splitting is very much not my intent. That’s the reason why I’m going to great lengths to address concerns as much as I can (which is no small feat: today’s version of the GCD shares no line with the version I submitted, not even the title!). >>> My suggestion is to clarify contribution guidelines with remarks on >>> copyrightability of submitted code and text (no genAI washing of our >>> codebase!) and maybe add something like `whoever submits slop gets >>> banned for 3 months' policy. Wouldn't that solve all the practical >>> problems? >> >> I think you are referring to point #2 of the “Policy” section: >> [...] > I don't think so. IIRC we don't currently have a section about > `copyrightability' of code (or text) submissions in our Manual. Now you > want to introduce rules about machine-generated code that are acceptable > only if they are **not** copyrightable. I guess we're missing a piece > where contributors only submit code they crafted themselves and, if at > all, is copyrightable *by them*. No? Well, yes and no. The rule that, when someone submits code, either it’s non-copyrightable or they have a valid copyright claim on it, has always existed, but it’s an unwritten rule (like in most free software projects). The GCD adds this new rule about LLM-generated code, which has to be treated specially. >> I think it addresses what you’re talking about, except it doesn’t >> propose a “ban” on contributors (which I think would be questionable). > I am not sure we talk about the same thing(s), here. If I understand > you correctly, you want to establish a policy (in the form of a > GCD—which has never before happened) where > >> genAI MUST NOT be used for direct interaction with other participants > > but you somehow find banning users that still do so questionable? Care > to elaborate? I don't understand how setting up a policy without > enforcing it would make any sense. The policy is enforced by banning contributions, not contributors: GenAI-produced contributions that do not meet this criterion will be rejected. That way, a contributor who violates the policy but genuinely didn’t know about it gets a chance to learn about it and remains welcome to contribute, this time following the project’s terms. > I hope this makes sense! Ludo’.
