> two and a half hours after your original post, by some curious coincidence,
> another person who also didn't understand the issue (but used a more
> descriptive subject) asked basically the exact same question and received
> several answers.
>
> you can find them in the misc@ list archives.
thanks for assuming i'm an idiot instead of answering my question. i
followed that thread but didn't see any real answers to my question
there, either ("was this an oversight, or is claude code explicitly
allowed in base now?").
maybe you don't like the way i formulated the question (see below).
> didn't understand the issue.
the confusion exists because none of the commit messages referred to
in these threads bothered to explain claude's role in contributing to
the commits. it wasn't clear to me if anyone had noticed the commits
happened, or if some internal discussion as to the ramifications was
already underway. the replies in that other thread explain one of the
commits but condescend to the question about the other one without
really answering it. yes, people use claude in different ways. yes,
perhaps these commits used claude in ways that don't raise objections
with other openbsd developers. but the replies i read didn't address
the specific commit i asked about, they responded about one commit and
then posed hypothetical rebuttals to perceived accusations. maybe i
did misunderstand something. you can help clear it up once and for
all: is claude code now explicitly accepted in openbsd base?
given a straight answer, i assure you i will stop replying to this
thread.
> by some curious coincidence
i'm cognizant you have no reason to distinguish me from adam, but i've
run openbsd on most of my computers since 1999. i've made minor
contributions to the ports tree, reported bugs, and continue to donate
money monthly to the openbsd foundation. while these contributions
probably make little difference to the project as a whole, i want to
get the story straight from the horse's mouth in order to clarify my
own future decisions about what i do with my time and money. if this
is not the proper place to ask about the policies of the openbsd
project, then where is the proper place to ask about the policies of
the openbsd project?
the curious coincidence is probably down to online chatter alerting
people to the commits and making them curious about what in the world
is going on, re: openbsd. you can observe a similar phenomenon any
time some notable event happens and multiple people find out about it
at roughly the same time. "two and a half hours after i spilled a
carton of milk on the kitchen floor, by some curious coincidence,
members of my family complained." unfortunately the commit messages
didn't preempt the alarm. in this case, two of us (i assume the
person who started that other thread was asking because they wanted to
know the answer, not to annoy you personally) posted on the mailing
list asking for the official line on claude code. for obvious
reasons, users of open source operating systems are sensitive to this
issue in current month, current year. we're sitting by watching other
projects accept generated code, gaslighting the world that all of this
is fine. you can pick apart any given post and shoot down all the
hypotheticals you like, but we all just want to know what openbsd's
policy is about so-called ai code. the answer from openbsd seems to
be, "if you're going to ask that question, go away."
wouldn't it make more sense to just disclose the project's policy?
not to belabor my point, but the following are three simple answers
that would put the question to rest:
1.) ai code is acceptable.
2.) ai code is acceptable only on a case-by-case basis.
3.) ai code is unacceptable.
i don't know how else to establish that this question is being asked
in good faith. but even if i go away, the question is probably not
going to go away. at some point, even if it's in a separate thread
where theo is arguing with someone trying to submit generated code and
telling them to kick rocks, the question is going to recur.
thanks, i guess.
sl
