GlyphSigh. It's go time, folks: https://github.com/twisted/twisted/issues/12676
I've had a lot going on and have not wanted to have this difficult conversation with the community, but apparently we have reached the point where it absolutely needs to be laid out clearly. To be honest I am still kind of shocked that anyone would consider it acceptable to start putting LLM output into open source libraries at all, just purely based on IP concerns alone. The way that the vendors' IP indemnification works only makes sense for proprietary code.
Christine Lemmer-Webber@glyph It's nice to not feel so alone, seeing another FOSS project lead say "we don't want our project to become a legal experiment"
I feel like the fact that we haven't seen enough leadership in FOSS say "hey, we DON'T know the licensing implications of this stuff" is catapulting the greater FOSS ecosystem into one giant legal experiment that seems, frankly, very likely to be grim for us.
I might say more in a separate thread. This has been brewing on my mind quite a bit lately.
Thanks for saying what you did in choosing to make a policy!
Peter Cock@cwebber @glyph another example https://github.com/biopython/biopython/pull/5241 (not agreed yet), similar rationale. A little dated but I blogged on this last year https://blastedbio.blogspot.com/2025/11/thoughts-on-generative-ai-contributions.html
eclexicI honestly don't know why so many projects think the legal repercussions will be nonexistent?
Probably for the same reason proprietary code projects are pretending they will have any legal standing to protect leaked code written primarily by LLMs...
I think this will get kicked down the road for a while, but I don't want to be involved when someone decides to pick it up...
The one thing is though, I'm unsure if copyright survives this in its current form.
@theeclecticdyslexic that could kick the legs out from today’s open source licensing… interesting times.