Hi Maxim, On 2026-05-28 at 16:36+09:00, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > 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.
Similar to the current GCD draft, why does it matter if it is _mostly_? I can be convinced if Y only takes outputs from X that are not legally significant to be consider infringing though. On 2026-05-28 at 16:36+09:00, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > 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. Isn't this _the point_ of the pledge? I think other found uses are not within the stated actions: > to author code or packages, to review code, to produce artwork, > translations, or any other artifacts. I suppose the ambuguity lies in the word _use_ and the clarification attempt in 595f6d8dc025 was not sufficient. Do you have any suggestion for the wording here? On top of my head, _A do not use B to do C_ could be replaced with e.g. - A do not C through B. - A do not have C done via B. Cheers, Phong
