On Sun, 20 Sep 2026, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ricardo, > > Ricardo Wurmus <[email protected]> writes: > >> Dear Guix maintainers, >> >> it is important for the community to see a response by the maintainer >> collective to this email. It is bad news if the CoC isn't actually >> enforced. Especially in light of the minimal noncommittal response of >> the maintainers to the LLM situation this casts a bad light on the >> project. > > I can tell you that the currently active co-maintainers (Tobias, Efraim > and myself) still take CoC enforcement and the well-being of our > community seriously. We've had gaps and inexcusable delays in the > summer, but things should be back to normal now. > > About the LLM situation, we're considering the addition of a trivial > non-LLM policy to the contribution guidelines of the manual. It feels a > bit off that this policy decision would come from the co-maintainers > after going through a consensus-driven process (GCD 008), but at the > same time the co-maintainers are the ones to withhold the "the project’s > commitment to be released under a copyleft free software license > (GPLv3+) and to follow the Free System Distribution Guideline (FSDG)" > [0].
If you, and the other the co-maintainers, hold the responsibility to keep the code GPLv3+, then I would argue that you can't accept any LLM contribution because there were no legal jurisprudences that show LLM is not derivatives work. Therefore, it is not currently possible, in a legal standpoint, to respect the GPL using any kind of LLM outputs. That ought to be a strong enough argument for the maintainers to take a decission. Thanks, Olivier -- Olivier Dion
