Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian

Simon Richter <[email protected]> Thu, 23 Jul 2026 01:48:05 +0900
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Hi,

On 7/23/26 00:35, Matthias Geiger wrote:

> 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

Seconded.

Regarding enforcement: this is a social problem only, therefore it needs 
a social solution.

We take people at their word. If that trust turns out to be unfounded, 
that has social consequences.

    Simon
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)