Lars, I don't know how the GNU Project is arriving at its policy or whether individual GNU projects have an opportunity to provide input. I have written to RMS about our policy and given him a link to it. I hope it can inform any decision they make.
I don't think the discussion should become a witch hunt either. AI is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used well or poorly. Regardless of how code is produced, I believe our responsibility as maintainers remains the same: to ensure that contributions meet our standards for licensing, provenance, quality, correctness, maintainability, and review. Ultimately, those standards are what determine whether code belongs in GNUstep, not the particular tools used during its development. I'm hoping the GNU Project reaches a thoughtful and balanced conclusion. Yours, Greg On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 5:00 AM [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > just one question in this regard: Do we have a voice in GNU’s discussion > on that topic (I hope, there is a discussion an not just a decision by one > person, namely RMS)? If so, I hope, we make our standpoint clear and don’t > go onto a witch-hunt against AI (which would be like a witch hunt against > compilers and linkers in the times when UNIX was still written in > assembler). In my opinion AI is just a (very sophisticated) tool which you > need to know, how to use it and its limitations. Then we can use it sanely > and to our advantage. > > Hoping for the best outcome, > > Lars > > Am 18.07.2026 um 10:23 schrieb Gregory Casamento <[email protected] > >: > > 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 > > > -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / Black Lotus, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com https://www.openhub.net/languages/objective_c
