On Tue, 2026-03-10 at 17:16 +0000, Filip Kobierski wrote: > Hi Michał, > > The issue you described is real and widespread. > > Maybe one could flag slop packages with a LICENSE variable that is not > accepted by default? > That would allow users to still have the final say in what can run on their > Gentoo systems but would be aware that AI-SLOP license is suboptimal. > Then I imagine the problem would be in marking packages as such... > Also the name of the "LICENSE"; AI-SLOP seems in-line with Gentoo's approach, > alas I in my opinion is unprofessional. Plain AI does not really sound > discouraging. Naming is a secondary issue though. > > What do you think about that? >
But what do we mark? Packages that use LLMs aggressively? Packages that accepted any LLM contributions? Packages that have commits that look suspicious, but aren't annotated as such? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
