On Thu, 30 Jul 2026, 08:27 Richard Biener, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 8:51 PM Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2026, 19:03 Richard Biener, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Am 29.07.2026 um 17:30 schrieb Arthur Cohen < > [email protected]>: > >> > > >> > Hi Richard, > >> > > >> > What are the important LLM issues that you think the policy fails to > address? As the policy itself states, the it is expected to evolve and > feedback is welcome. The goal is to continuously improve it. > >> > >> The policy grounds its rejection of legally significant LLM > contributions on legal issues (by means of naming). It does not cover the > IMO much more severe issues of overwhelming reviewers and keeping GCC > maintainable. > > > > > > Such contributions are not allowed by the policy, so we don't need to > burn reviewer time on them, and we don't need to worry that those > contributions will make GCC unmaintainable. > > > > If the legal situation changes and somebody wants to argue for relaxing > the policy, they'll need to make a convincing case that it won't overwhelm > reviewers or lead to code nobody understands. Until then, such discussions > don't seem productive too me (but that doesn't mean they can't happen > anyway). > > > > > > > >> It also makes LLM assisted contributions by maintainers who might > want to use LLMs to get to prototype stages fall into grey areas or even > rejected. I realize the policy is not a discussion review document but > what was the point of having the policy group when the outcome is just the > obvious ‚legally unclear situation‘ statement? > > > > > > Now at least it's written down and we can point to it as the policy. > Previously it was unclear whether this project cared about the legal issues. > > It still leaves "legally significant" up to interpretation. When > somebody posts a LLM [assisted] patch that is legally significant or > when I let an LLM > do a prototype to assess viability of an idea, is not any non-LLM > implementation of the same solution (as vague as that is) a derivative > work of > a possibly infringing work? So is posting LLM produced patches to GCC > able to DOS GCC development this way? Is that different to posting non-GPL code? Similar for the allowed > use of LLMs to analyze bugs or tooling. How can that be legally sound? > > Richard. > > > > > As Arthur said, this isn't expected to be the final policy that lasts > forever. > > >
