glibc AI policy

[Sam James]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * 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.

Outside of communication to glibc stewards which I would not be party
to, with regard to Emacs, there was
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-03/msg00554.html.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20260407/42209ea7/attachment.sig>