Re: [PATCH glep] glep-0076: Remove kernel DCO use provision

On 6/22/26 10:12 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> I should probably have pointed out that as a followup I'd like to
> integrate at least some of our AI policy into GCO, so that a contributor
> signing off would also clarify that the contribution was made with "no
> assistance of ..."  Having a DCO fallback would then be a significant
> loophole.
> 

I don't know how easy it would be for me to be in favor of this. Let me 
explain.

Part of the DCO is that it's transitive: I'm making a declaration *about 
the code* regardless of where it came from. With licensing issues, 
that's fairly straightforward: where did the code come from/what was it 
derived from (if not my brain directly). For AI, that adds a major 
burden -- let's say I'm adding a patch to files/ from the new version of 
package "XYZ". Such a DCO provision would put me in the unfortunate 
position of having to make a value judgement on if the folks who touched 
the code before me used an LLM.

Also, more generally, adding "and no AI" to all our policies, when we 
already have an overarching no-LLM-contribution policy, is another form 
of AI infiltration into our community spaces. It's like adding a rule to 
not think about a red ball when working on Gentoo -- the presence of the 
rule itself is a reminder of the stuff some folks come to Gentoo to escape.

I know I'm probably seen as a "pro AI" developer, but honestly -- I'm 
tired of the discourse. Pro and anti AI statements are already 
everywhere I look -- please don't have it infiltrate even more Gentoo 
processes like our DCO.

-JayF