3 ms·

> But at the end of the day you're still ignoring her wishes. Probably important for context - there was no official announcement, so no, it's not like I ignor

by xlii 4mo ago

> But at the end of the day you're still ignoring her wishes. Probably important for context - there was no official announcement, so no, it's not like I ignored wishes or direction, it was presented to me after the fact. And (as I mentioned) I'm not mad at policy. I'm mad that: - that was after fact - that policy itself is stupid (even if temporary), because it invites under-the-skin slop (though I doubt anyone would go to contribute to core Emacs code slop) - that actual talks are happening behind closed doors - and I had lost my time That's the conclusion. Direction is fine, yet given that I cannot use the tools in my toolset I'm moving on with my work elsewhere (at least until that's settled).

vkazanov 4mo ago
It is not "after the fact". This is a big discussion in open source over all, and checking contribution policies "before the fact" would prevent this waste of time immediately. Hell, asking your favourite llm about this would clarify the situation in a minute.
- xlii 4mo ago
  > checking contribution policies "before the fact" GNU has no such contribution policy. As I wrote it's currently a discussions behind the closed doors. Those who inform about usage of LLMs are notified that their contributions won't be accepted, and I think I'm second or third in the whole emacs-devel mailing list history. Thread about LLM contributions sparked after my piece, not before it. From my research, the only prior discussion was in March 2026 with conclusion that "lawyers are looking into it" and no followup whatsoever. Though, if I made a mistake during my research don't hesitate to correct me, because it will prevent me from making similar mistake in future.
  - vkazanov 4mo ago
    FSF is working on such a policy. Many other projects are announcing/discussing these. Legal problems with LLM-written code are well-known. And copyright law is the cornerstone of open source as an idea in general. Besides legal issues, major oss projects do not necessarily accept contributions to core subsystems by default. Maintainers can and often will decline patches. I've lost count of my patches that were declined, or unreviewed, or unnoticed. And that's before the LLM explosion, when patches were small and expensive to write Your frustration is understandable but could have been avoided.

by xlii 4mo ago

vkazanov 4mo ago

It is not "after the fact". This is a big discussion in open source over all, and checking contribution policies "before the fact" would prevent this waste of time immediately. Hell, asking your favourite llm about this would clarify the situation in a minute.

xlii 4mo ago
> checking contribution policies "before the fact" GNU has no such contribution policy. As I wrote it's currently a discussions behind the closed doors. Those who inform about usage of LLMs are notified that their contributions won't be accepted, and I think I'm second or third in the whole emacs-devel mailing list history. Thread about LLM contributions sparked after my piece, not before it. From my research, the only prior discussion was in March 2026 with conclusion that "lawyers are looking into it" and no followup whatsoever. Though, if I made a mistake during my research don't hesitate to correct me, because it will prevent me from making similar mistake in future.
- vkazanov 4mo ago
  FSF is working on such a policy. Many other projects are announcing/discussing these. Legal problems with LLM-written code are well-known. And copyright law is the cornerstone of open source as an idea in general. Besides legal issues, major oss projects do not necessarily accept contributions to core subsystems by default. Maintainers can and often will decline patches. I've lost count of my patches that were declined, or unreviewed, or unnoticed. And that's before the LLM explosion, when patches were small and expensive to write Your frustration is understandable but could have been avoided.