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

Sam James <[email protected]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 18:42:54 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.gentoo.devel
Organization	Gentoo
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Jay Faulkner <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

Right. I don't think we can reason about this completely without seeing what the
proposed GCO change would be (-> I'm not sure about using it justify
removal of the fallback), and I think any proposed GCO change would
either itself have a loophole, or be far too onerous and not work.

> 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.

Yes, having LLM discussion, references, mentions, ... everywhere has
genuinely given me some fatigue. I'd prefer to avoid adding more.

>
> -JayF

sam

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 418 B)