On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 5:00 PM Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Jim Meyering wrote: > > There was another bug noted in that same report, but it was harder, so > > I got help from claude and liked the result (it also resolves a > > longstanding XFAIL for one of grep's tests). I've just pushed this: > > I think you pushed this too early. > > Both in glibc and in Gnulib there is a sentiment or a policy against > accepting contributions made by an LLM in the code base. > - glibc: [1] > - Gnulib: [2], see also HACKING line 226.
A small nit... LLM's don't make contributions; rather people do. When Jim signs-off on the patch, it is his work; and not that of an LLM. This is well established in the legal community. The lawyer who signs off on the pleading is responsible for the pleading. Even when it is defective. > One of the dangerous issues in this area is the question around > copyright [3]: > "Who is the copyright holder in this case? ... > We don't know. The law hasn't caught up to the technology yet > and we can't take the risk that, when it does, it will go in > a way that makes use of AI-written code now expose us to legal risk." > > Bruno > > [1] > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/[email protected]/T/#m860ac9e40b57f797a37506ef1fbef3f2852461af > [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2026-02/msg00064.html > [3] https://lwn.net/Articles/1064541/ Jeff
