glibc AI policy

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 4/13/26 8:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For the record, I'm not happy with requiring Assisted-by:.  If those
> companies want us to advertise their products, that's something they
> should pay for.  It also raises the question whether we need to track if
> users paid models or the free version, which may have different
> ownership terms of generated materials.  Without such information, it
> would be misleading to use the trailers for any project-specific purpose
> (which is why I think it's mostly about advertising).

Sorry, when I reviewed your earlier patch I tried to express that I did
not think that we needed to write the name of the actual tool used, but
I failed to express that clearly. When I said "LLM" I meant it literally
in that we could use "Assisted-by: LLM" and that would be sufficient
for now.

I would like to see two outcomes:

  (1) Transparency:

      Tool-generated contributions are clearly marked to indicate
      that part of the work was not generated by the author.

      I want the developers to talk transparently about where they are
      using tools to support their work (including tools that reduce
      sources).

      This is tied to the trust, and the amount of review, coaching or
      mentorship I might provide as a reviewer of the contribution.

  (2) Respecting reviewers:

      LLM contributions are clearly marked such that reviewers that *do not*
      want to review anything to do with LLMs can choose where to put their
      time and energy. This has to do with respecting the time of our reviewers
      and giving them the information they need to make a decision to review.

      The tools are sufficiently polarizing today in the community that I want
      to enable informed consent e.g. you know what you're reviewing.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.