glibc AI policy

[Jeffrey Law]

On 4/5/2026 3:06 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jeffrey Law:
>
>> On 4/2/2026 12:56 PM, Collin Funk wrote:
>>> DJ Delorie<dj@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Given that GNU is a USA-based project, and that the copyright status of
>>>> AI in the USA is still... "nebulous at best"... it might take time to
>>>> figure out whether or not we can accept that first AI patch that comes
>>>> along.  Better to take that time now so we can respond more quickly
>>>> then.
>>> The copyright situation is the reason I am against tentatively accepting
>>> patches while waiting for a more official policy from the FSF. Thanks
>>> for mentioning that.'
>> Yea, that's where I'd land as well.  Until the copyright situation is
>> better understood I would not accept any LLM generated code that is
>> outside the de-minimis guidelines set by the FSF.
> Has the FSF communicated this (not accepting LLM-generated
> contributions for now) to the glibc stewards?  Why would the
> de-minimis guidelines apply, anyway?  I assume those are about not
> diluting the copyright assignment, but that's hardly a concern for GNU
> components accepting contributions under the DCO.
A de-minimis contribution is (at least in the US) considered so trivial 
that is not copyrightable, so I'd tend to suspect such contributions, 
even from LLMs, wouldn't be a problem under the FSF's de-minimis 
guidelines of 5 lines of code.  Of course de-minimis contributions in 
aggregate may cross the threshold into copyrightable.

Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20260405/ec4520b9/attachment.htm>