Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian

Antoine Le Gonidec <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 18:20:40 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
I am sponsoring the whole proposal quoted below, without any modification to suggest.

> BEGIN PROPOSAL
> 
> 
> Preamble
> ===========
> 
> This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with
> the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools.
> 
> The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive): - Debian source packages
> - Official Debian project software, such as lintian
> - Debian web resources - Documentation and translations added by Debian
> contributors
> - Official communication from Debian
> 
> It does not include: - Upstream projects using LLMs for development
> - AI-related software
> 
> 
> Rationale
> ===========
> 
> Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is crucial
> to Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. It is our belief that
> widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude
> that, while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes
> Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors.
> 
> In practical terms, LLM usage raises the following concerns:
> 
> 1. Copyright     LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be
> possible to copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all
> of the licenses and copyrights in the training data, or not.    Debian
> Policy and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing and
> copyright[1][2]. Software and other contributions written conventionally by
> humans with unclear copyright or license 	status are not allowed in Debian;
>    LLM output should not have a special exception to this.
>     2. Quality  LLM output has many well-known problems with
> 	accuracy.[3][4][5] A LLM can never "know" if its output is correct 	since
> it merely produces syntactically likely combinations of the 	training data.
>    In some environments this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For
> instance, in packaging, each Debian source package is unique. Since
> packaging syntax and best practices have changed over time,    a
> LLM-produced package will have a mixture of contents spanning the age of the
> archive, with watch files that do not work, overrides out of context,
> imaginary copyright, 	and will generally be unfit for upload.    A seasoned
> Debian contributor with packaging expertise may find some limited usefulness
> here, but a new contributor cannot, and would not know how to fix it.
> These same quality and accuracy concerns apply clearly to all of the areas
> listed in the scope of this proposal above.
>    If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain experts who never leave, this might not be an issue; however,
>         3. Community     Debian is a project that is more than just code: it
> is a community built on shared interests in free software and solving
> technical problems.    Debian intentionally grows this community through
> many means, and new contributors are always encouraged to join. Allowing LLM
> contributions breaks this.    New contributors submitting LLM output for
> review places an unnecessary strain on the reviewer, which can lead to
> burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent new contributors    do not actually
> learn and understand the details of Debian packaging or processes, so they
> cannot come to replace a former burned out DD.
> 
> 4. Ethics     LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as
> whole by scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for
> license, copyright, or even established
>    conventions such as robots.txt.[6]
>    This has had a major negative impact on Debian's public web resources, effectively a large scale and perpetual Denial of Service attack on sites that many users rely on.
>    As a consequence parts of our infrastructure were not reachable at all,
> and JS-based checks had to be enabled. Many other projects were similarly
> affected.    Furthermore, LLM training consumes a staggering amount of
> resources[7], and the user verification systems that we have been forced to
> implement as protection waste resources as well.
>    This is blatant disregard for the internet as a public resource, wastes
> system administrator time, and although individual LLM sessions do not
> directly use massive resources or DoS the public web,    the fact that they
> can be used at all is a direct result of these unethical behaviours by the
> LLM companies.
> 
> Debian has a Social Contract. [8] Our priorities are our users and free software.
> Debian is Stable. [9] Users and organizations choose Debian because it is reliable and secure.
> 
> Debian is not here to generate as much code as possible requiring manual
> review by a shrinking number of human volunteers, or to package every piece
> of software, or to rush new features, but these are what LLMs are used for.
> 
> In conclusion, allowing LLM contributions is contrary to the social contract and the common cause of creating a free operating system with a focus on quality and stability.
> 
> 
> Proposal
> ===========
> 
> In the interest of not eroding Debian's reputation or further damaging the
> community, LLM-assisted contributions should be prohibited from inclusion in
> Debian.
> 
> Though our position is that LLM contributions are contrary to documents
> already ratified by Debian, in order to remove all doubt, we propose the
> following addition to the Social Contract:
> 
> 6. Works Created through the use of Large Language Models (LLMs)
>    We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance
>    of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools. Direct contributions are
>    defined as packaging, native Debian software like lintian, documentation and translations
>    written by Debian contributors, and official Debian web resources, etc. Other categories
>    such as upstream projects written with LLM assistance may be included at
> a later date.    This ensures that Debian remains a stable, trusted, and
> reliable operating
>    system, and protects the interests of the Debian volunteers who make it possible.
> 
> Possible Issues
> ===========
> 
> Other projects exploring similar decisions have elicited a common reply: "How will you enforce a ban on LLM contributions?"
> While enforcement could be a challenge, this is a statement of intent by the
> Debian community, and we trust this community to adhere to it in good faith.
> 
> END PROPOSAL
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 228 B)