Hi, Here are my comments for a read of commit 6f3990db8e of the document. I'll try and be brief.
About the first (1) pledge point: I disagree about blanket pledging not using any of the LLM tools. As others have found in our community, they can have a use. I'd suggest dropping this point of the pledge. About the third (3) pledge point: it's trying to police on a basis different than "is it free software?" which reminds me of the ethical licenses that say things like "this software cannot be used for military purposes"; it sounds reasonable at first sight, but opens the door to a never ending list of restrictions to add, of course each addition introducing a new incompatible software license, fragmenting free software. I don't want to go down that road and creating a precedent that'd open the door for more such policing in the future. Of course, if it's ruled that X tool's output infringes on its trained material, and if software Y was written mostly with X, we'd have to conclude that Y's advertised license is invalid and thus nonfree. I'd suggest dropping this point of the pledge. I think it's better to focus on what we've already pledged for: free software only, and keep this pledge crystal clear. I'm fine with the rest. -- Thanks, Maxim
