RFC: The Binutils and LLM generated patches

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/2/25 10:48 AM, Collin Funk wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>>    I think that it is time that the GNU Binutils project had a position
>>    on whether or not it will accept LLM generated content.  I am
>>    proposing the attached text as a description of the project's standing
>>    on this issue, and I am interested to hear your comments.
>>
>>    My plan is to add this text - or rather whatever final version we
>>    reach - to the binutils/README file and the Contributors page on the
>>    binutils wiki.  I am also wondering if we should have a file similar
>>    to the binutils/SECURITY.txt file.  But if so, what name should we use?
>>
>>    The proposed text also invents two new tags for LLM generated
>>    contributions:  Generated-By:  and  LLM-Query:  I just pulled these
>>    out of thin air, so feel to suggest better ones, or tell me that they
>>    are pointless.
> 
> There was discussion on banning AI assisted contributions in glibc that
> is currently still not resolved [1].

I've read that thread and I need to respond there.

> I think that ideally the two projects should have the same/similar
> policy if possible.

Agreed, I think the whole GNU Toolchain should have the same policy.

> I responded with my thoughts in that thread, which are similar to yours.
> Given the lack of case law, I am not confident that output of LLMs is
> copyrightable.

We should not allow LLM generated content into the project.

However, we should not word the policy so broadly as to prevent the use
of assistive devices e.g. screen readers, speech to text, etc. for those
in the community using these technologies to enable their collaboration
(not contribution).

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.