glibc AI policy

[Florian Weimer]

* 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.

Thanks for the reference.  This is what Richard Stallman wrote:

| The FSF is working on one.  Please wait for us to finish and publish
| it before stirring up disputes about hypothetical options.

I assume the net effect that for Emacs, it's a case-by-case decision if
a machine-generated contribution is accepted.  So it's pretty much like
what we do for glibc today, I think.

Thanks,
Florian