Re: GCC LLM policy adopted

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 10:11, Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  Is this really what we're discussing though? I can see why one would
>  want an AI policy not to bar on copyright grounds something that is not
>  copyrightable in the first place. That's reasonable. But I don't think
>  it's what people really mean when they're concerned about
>  copyright.
>
> The wording of the proposals bans *all* contributions where AI is used in their creation,
> without any regard to the copyrightability of the contribution itself.
>
> So that is why the argument is proposed, that if teh copyright *is* the key concern, then the
> policy should not apply to contrubitions small enough not to be considered as copyrightable
> and do so explicitly.

I should have made it clear that I see and appreciate that concern. If
there was interest in my ballot proposal, I would have worked to change
the wording accordingly.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=jp+q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--