@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?

@codonell @civodul I mean I know there are caveats and it's not necessary *today* that all LLM generated code is non-copyrightable (e.g. if a developer uses it for scaffolding and then injects their own creativity in there, making the code copyrightable) but it's something to think about when creating an LLM policy that doesn't just reject or quarantine legally significant contributions.