@civodul I'm working on a glibc (and jointly a gcc) LLM policy which I'll propose for public review, and the difficulty is in threading the needle between technology that we could use ourselves, and user freedoms. My position ends up being that I want to define a policy that allow the projects the to outright reject *or* accept such changes as they see fit, within certain constraints that support user freedom e.g. either you understand the code or it is reproducible with a tool.

@codonell @civodul that speaks to the validity of the code, and maybe empowers/includes more people (maybe the opposite too, if LLM use discourages those ideologically opposed?) in the development community for the project. What does it do for the bigger software freedom picture though? What does it do for copyleft code bases? Is the move towards all FOSS code becoming public domain (given that US courts are leaning towards LLM generated code not being copyrightable) a net positive one?

@siddhesh_p @civodul You can only control your own actions, and I would continue to contribute creatively to copyleft projects, and I would encourage others to do the same. Even if someone else, who I don't control, uses an LLM to create a clone, they could always have done that with a fork. They will still not have my time or my attention.

@codonell @civodul yes but someone having an LLM fork the project is not a concern when it comes to drafting LLM policies for projects. That's a separate dumpster fire.

@codonell @civodul as maintainer btw, you control not only your actions, but also the actions of your project community and an LLM policy is exactly that :)