On 2026-07-09 at 20:55-04:00, Greg Hogan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 2:52 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Steve George skribis: > > > I don't think there's any circumstance where we'd have > > > to rip out LLM code from the archive. > > > > One case is that of copyright infringement where the LLM regurgitated > > code that is proprietary or published under an incompatible license. > > From what I’ve seen (references are in the GCD and in its previous > > versions), this scenario is not science-fiction. > > As discussed previously, the scenarios presented were targeted > extraction on old models. But it should be easy to demonstrate > incidental regurgitation for a model which would be used here, right?
Yes, it is (-: Luca Alloatti wrote in https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13#issuecomment-17301713: > Cayetano Santos wrote in > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13#issuecomment-17272979: > > Luca Alloatti wrote in > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13#issuecomment-17269421: > > > I maintain the (independent) guix-eda-llm channel > > > https://codeberg.org/fsi/guix-eda-llm > > > > First, turns out that some packages in your `guix-eda-llm` > > are a literal copy-paste of [gnat] in [guix-science], > > no mention to its original author, repository or license, > > are you aware of that? > > Thanks for pointing it out: it was an error. I audited the channel > against upstream Guix, Guix-Science, Nonguix and our manual channel: > among the published packages (fsi/packages-llm) > it affects 3 of 78 files [...] the agent must have found > the [guix-science] repository indeed and must have preferred to copy > those lines rather than adding the full channel as a dependency.
