April 13, 2026 at 6:08 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]?to=%22Amos%20Jeffries%22%20%3Csquid3%40treenet.co.nz%3E > wrote:
> > On 12/04/2026 08:07, jbranso wrote: > > > > > April 11, 2026 at 5:38 AM, "Amos Jeffries" wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/04/2026 01:31, jbranso wrote: > > > > > I'm assuming that the Hurd's current policy is not to accept AI > > contributed code. > > Opperating under that assumption, I'll add a patch to the wiki documented > > that we are ok with AI to debug the Hurd codebase, but NOT to write code. > > Thanks, > > Joshua > > > > > > > > I recall there being issues with peoples patches to some of the Hurd > > > related GNU projects not being merged due to copyright assignment issues. > > > > > I don't believe that this is an issue. I have been contributed to the hurd > > wiki for years (without copyright assignment). > > When I submitted my first contribution to the Hurd manual, Samuel would > > not merge my patches until I had assigned copyright. > > > Exactly. You were able to assign **your** copyrights. > > IFF the AI is "a legal person/entity", then they/it have to come and assign > any permission for Hurd to use their code. Per normal policy the patch is not > permitted, yet. > > If the AI is "just a tool", then things become a question of who has the > copyrights for the generated patch. > > I am not sure if the foundational question of whether AI is generating new > content, or copying others work has been settled in legal circles. Let alone > whether there is a Hurd policy or view about it. > > > > > So I'm pretty sure Samuel would catch anyone trying to contribute without > > assignment. > > > That is not the point. > > The point is about what to publish in the wiki about **why** AI patches are > rejected. If we come to a consensus on what I should write on the wiki, then let me know! > > > > > > > > I'm not sure who is in charge of Hurd legal matters, but it would be > > > worth checking with them for anything like the above, to document as > > > relevant for AI generated code. > > > > > > HTH > > > Amos > > > > > I do wonder what the FSF will encourage GNU package maintainers about A.I. > > I assume that they do not want AI contributions, but I > > do not know if they have released an official statement or not. > > I know Linus just allowed AI contribution to Linux: > > https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html > > Thanks, > > Joshua > > > Thanks for that link. That kernel policy has some interesting implications > and foresight in the wording. > > HTH > Amos >
