For Guix the current proposal looks a lot better and balanced to me than the first. Kudos. I am fine with it. The copyright issue is the main one, as far as I am concerned. The rest appears to be more contrived (non-free software companies, learning, energy) and serving other goals/agendas. But that has all been on the table.
At least we'll be news on announcing it ;). Pj. On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 07:01:50PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Pjotr and all, > > Pjotr Prins <[email protected]> skribis: > > > I think the environmental statement is the weakest part of GCD008, or > > at least the most exaggerated. > > I disagree, but that’s OK: each one of us values and prioritizes things > differently, and yet we can find common ground. > > > Automating package writing in Guix is a boon for *our* projects. It *is* > > saving us significant time with better outputs. > > I trust you on this. > > One question I have is: What can we already do that would better address > packaging needs like yours? Is it possible to reiterate what was > achieved with Guix-CRAN¹ for more packages? > > ¹ Fully automated import of ~20k packages with 95% of successful builds: > <https://codeberg.org/guix-science/guix-cran>. > > > […] I don't like GCD008 because it is a > > loaded gun aimed at our own feet. > > I understand why you would see it that way, on the grounds that LLM > would help us automate packaging and refactoring labor that our tooling > does not (not yet) handle. > > I’m seeing the other side of this coin. My concern, as someone who > already spends more time reviewing than writing code, is that letting > “AI” in without regulation would also be a “loaded gun aimed at our own > feet”. > > I listed examples to share my perspective, with questions to whoever > who’d rather avoid regulation as proposed by this GCD: > > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13#issuecomment-16470989 > > Applying the proposed pledge would change nothing compared to current > practices; withdrawing it—and thus sending the signal that “AI” use > won’t be regulated—would have social, technical, and juridical effects > that I think will quickly become irreversible. > > I think we have to come to an agreement about a policy that takes into > account these two sides of the coin. > > Thanks, > Ludo’. --
