David, Sorry for the late reply; work has been very demanding lately. Of course, any policy they issue will apply to us. I think this is a reasonable approach for EMACS if they are waiting for guidance from the GNU Project.
Until that policy is published, however, I don't think it gives us any basis for changing GNUstep's existing approach. Once the GNU Project has issued its guidance, we can evaluate it on its merits, determine whether and how it applies to GNUstep, and discuss whether any changes are warranted. I believe our current policy provides a practical balance as it focuses on licensing, provenance, code quality, review, and maintainability rather than the specific tools contributors use. As mentioned in previous emails, I have set a clear line on what is acceptable, and this was reflected in the discussion a few weeks ago. Yours, GC On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 4:31 AM David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Jul 2026, at 22:48, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Based on the discussion, I do not see sufficient consensus or > justification to replace our existing AI policy with a "No-AI" policy for > the GNUstep core libraries. Accordingly, the existing policy will remain in > effect. > > Most of the arguments have been covered in other places and it’s quite > surprising that most of the folks in this thread seem unfamiliar with them, > but I would add one thing: > > This week, EMACS paused ‘AI’ contributions because the GNU project is > expected to provide an explicit policy soon. I presume that policy will > apply to GNUstep as well. > > David > > -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / Black Lotus, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com https://www.openhub.net/languages/objective_c
