Am Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 02:35:48PM +0900 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: > I think it's unavoidable that this kind of LLM usage happens in the > community (which mainstream search engine doesn't show some LLM-produced > summary these days?), and I think a good thing we can do is ask from our > contributors to be transparent about it, by adding a disclaimer when > they've used an LLM to author their changes. It could be just a box to > check in the PR template, or some git trailer, or both.
While this sounds like a reasonable thing to do, ironically it would stop me from committing the pull request due to unclear licenses of LLM generated code. As Anderson Torres pointed out, it can be seen as a derivative work of all the data the LLM has been trained with (which means, among others, all source code available on the Internet). If interpreted like this, the result becomes non distributable. (Admittedly this is not the only possible interpretation; for instance recounting a copyrighted story in one's own words is not a violation of copyright since only the individual "artistic expression" is copyrightable, the general idea is not. So maybe this is what LLMs do. And then since they are not natural persons, the outcome is not copyrightable and thus in the public domain. Then whether we want to "pollute" our GPL code with public domain code is yet another question.) So if someone ticks the box "this code is not redistributable", I will not redistribute it... If someone hides the fact that their code is not redistributable, I may apply it since we assume that by making a pull request, contributors take the stance that the code is under their copyright and they take responsibility for it. Andreas
