That would imply it'd be fine for me to contribute AI assisted work if I did so politely and honestly. I just need to respect the maintainer's time and I'm golden, right?

That's not what the policy says, is it?

It's a shame, really. I had some GCC patches under development, and now I simply won't submit them. Not the first time I ended up sitting on perfectly good patches after running smack into such a policy either.

▲

overgard an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The thing they want is clear legal standing. If your submission is majority LLM generated, you can't really confirm that "your" code isn't a copy of something in the training set that has an incompatible license (or a clear copyright violation). That might not be a big deal for some projects, but being this is GNU and their entire identity is centered around free software and licensing, it's kind of a big deal to them.

	▲	olalonde 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's just not an issue in practice. All major AI labs match generated code against their training database to prevent outputting verbatim copies. They're so confident that they won't output copyrighted code that they offer copyright indemnification to paid users.
	▲	11 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

bigfishrunning 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This policy means that the GCC maintainers have defined "perfectly good" differently then you have.

	▲	olalonde 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think they meant it as "indistinguishable from a human contribution".
	▲	matheusmoreira 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Here's to hoping LLVM will define it differently.