On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 10:36:56PM +0200, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 10:25:54 +0100 > Steve George <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think I follow _how_ you think the situation will have > > changed Denis? > > > > From what I can see: > > > > - Before LLMs > > - some code in the archive has copyright, some does not > > - After LLMs > > - some code in the archive has copyright, some does not > > I agree with that but it was not my point at all. > > - Without LLMs: > Commits were made by people or tools and most of it was legal > and re-distributable because: > > (1) Generally speaking people did the work, even if we had no > Developers Certificate of Onwership. They wouldn't (massively) > copy code from sources under incompatible licenses / leaked code, > etc. > > Note that Linux didn't even bother to review patches without > signed-off-by and not having that is a complete no-go. > > (2) What was copyrightable *didn't matter* unless we were trying to > enforce the GPL in a lawsuit. > > And here I'm not concerned about the GPL or copyleft. It is important > indeed but there are priorities. > > And here my #1 priority is to keep Guix legal to be able to continue > using it as a dependency for GNU Boot, to enable the Chipflasher project > to still use it, etc. My #2 priority is to keep it free but that's not > what is discussed here.
Thanks Denis, I misunderstood, thanks for clarifying your goals. Steve / Futurile
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
