原文
Hi,
This is a corrected ballot for the GR about LLM usage in Debian.
Voting period starts 2026-08-15 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2026-08-28 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact [email protected].
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a signed mail to
[email protected]
with the subject "gr_llm".
To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the options.
You might also want to read discussions at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
[email protected]
The form you need to fill out is contained bellow in this message, marked
with two lines containing the characters '-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase
anything between those lines, and do not change the choice names.
There are 9 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between 1
and 9. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2
in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you reach your
last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 9.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of the above"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"None of the above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"None of the above" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to:
[email protected].
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
VOTING SECRECY
This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
that your vote is in the list. This secret is sent in an encrypted
mail.
VOTING FORM
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
d69f9187-ed2f-40b6-a2eb-4211d3f84d86
[ ] Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract
[ ] Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions
[ ] Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct
[ ] Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
[ ] Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
[ ] Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI
[ ] Choice 7: Debian is created by humans
[ ] Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker
[ ] Choice 9: None of the above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.
BALLOT OPTIONS
Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract
===============================================================
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
- Upstream patches/security fixes etc.
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.
Citations
---------
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#copyright-considerations
[2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20240614004123/https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/10/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20250328154700/https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html#dives-cot
[5] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openais-sam-altman-tells-salesforces-marc-benioff-that-ai-hallucinations-are-more-feature-than-bug-1c035c52
[6] https://lwn.net/Articles/1008897/
[7] https://tech-insider.org/ai-data-center-power-crisis-2026/
[8] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
[9] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/pr01.en.html#_what_is_debian
Disclaimers
-----------
Citations are for background information only and do not reflect
an endorsement of specific websites. Some ideas and wording were
derived from the sources below.
Sources
-------
GNOME discussion:
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327
(CC0) Gentoo AI policy:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policyxi
Codeberg AI policy:
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
This document was written by Matthias Geiger and Jesse Rhodes with
input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language model
assistance.
Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions
=========================================================
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted
contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at
the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes
without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR
process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot
come to a consensus.
The Debian project recognizes that AI-assisted contributions raise
many concerns, e.g. about the technical quality and maintainability of
such contributions, and their legal status. AI itself also raises
additional concerns, about its impact on society at large, on the IT
industry and on Free Software; about its environmental impact; and the
aggressive or non-compliant practices of AI scrapers.
Nevertheless, many Debian contributors find AI tools helpful when
contributing to Debian, and ultimately for improving Debian.
Given both the benefits and risks of AI assistance, and the
controversial discussions within the community, the Debian project
finds it necessary to clarify its position on AI-assisted
contributions and establish clear guidelines.
The Debian project allows AI-assisted contributions (partially or
fully generated by an LLM), provided the following conditions are met:
1. *Tooling Legal Compatibility*: Contributors should ensure that the
terms and conditions of the generative AI tool do not impose
contractual restrictions that conflict with the distribution,
modification, or use of the output in the context of Debian.
2. *Licensing and Attribution*: If any pre-existing copyrighted
materials (including pre-existing code licensed as free software)
authored or owned by third parties are included in the AI tool’s
output, prior to contributing such output to the project, the
contributor should verify they have the right to submit it under the
relevant open source license.
3. *Accountability*: Contributors assume full responsibility for their
contributions, including vouching for the technical merit, security,
license compliance, and utility of their submissions. The contributor
remains solely accountable for the entirety of these contributions.
Contributors should fully understand the proposed changes and be
prepared to justify them.
4. *Disclosure*: When a significant portion of a contribution is
generated or substantially assisted by a tool, contributors should
disclose the use of the tool, making it clearly visible to the
intended audience. This covers all forms of contribution, including
code, mailing list posts, and bug discussions. The form of the
disclosure is left to the contributor; one convenient option for
commits is a Git trailer such as Generated-By: or Assisted-By:.
5. *Prior Discussion of Bulk or Automated Changes*: Similarly to the
mass-bug filing process (Developers Reference section 7.1.1),
contributors should discuss their intention before submitting bulk or
autonomously generated contributions. Any such automated process
should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior
and output.
6. *Confidentiality and Privacy*: Contributors must not use generative
AI tools that transmit data to untrusted providers with non-public or
sensitive project information (such as embargoed security reports or
private communication), as this may lead to the unintended disclosure
of confidential data.
Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct
=================================================================
Summary: Reject LLMs (generative "AI") as far as practical
BACKGROUND
----------
LLMs have many serious problems, including: undermining the mechanisms
of free software community building; environmental damage;
exploitation of authors; disruption to open web hosting by aggressive
scraping; generation and promulgation of bullshit, polluting the
information commons; hazards to users' mental health; economic bubbles
and distortion of the computer hardware market; fraud; ownership by
horrible people and companies; and so on. Ethical and safe use of this
technology is almost impossible.
Ideally, LLM output should not form any part of software that we rely
on, nor should LLM output ever take the place of human-written prose.
Unfortunately some of the wider software world, including many of our
upstreams, take a different view. Therefore a complete ban on LLM
output as part of Debian is currently impractical.
REQUESTS
--------
1. We request that all contributors to Debian avoid the use of LLMs in
their Debian work.
2. We request that all decisionmakers within Debian discourage LLM use
as much as practical. Practicality is a judgement call and we
recognise that it will involve uncomfortable compromises.
3. We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from
using this technology. In particular, the Free Software and Open
Source communities should reject LLMs. We recognise that not everyone
will heed this call.
REQUIREMENTS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODES OF CONDUCT)
-------------------------------------------------
4. Within Debian, messages to humans (including for example bug
reports, mailing list messages, discussions on Salsa, and blog posts
on Planet Debian) must be drafted solely by humans without LLM
assistance.
5. Moderators and disciplinary teams may make narrow and tailored
exceptions to rule 4, and decide on interpretation.
6. Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed.
7. Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions
completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be
respected.
8. Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of
the relevant Code of Conduct and should result in swift and
proportionate disciplinary action.
Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
==========================================================
Debian as a project does not endorse or recommend the use of
generative AI assistants for software development, as it raises
multiple concerns about ethics, legality, copyright, etc.
Nevertheless, Debian acknowledges that these practices are already in
use and here to stay. Rather than banning their use, which seems
counter-productive and unenforceable, the project chooses to place
responsibility on contributors and therefore defines the following
guidelines.
*These apply exclusively to code and work done specifically for the
Debian project (Debian websites, applications, resources, packages,
etc.)*. They do not apply to any upstream work. In what follows, "work"
refers to the contributions done specifically for the Debian project.
- All code and work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool must
comply with the DFSG.
- The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted work and:
- they sufficiently evaluated and properly understand the work they
intend to submit, and are able to explain and defend it;
- they put any potential Signed-off-by tag and OpenPGP signatures on
the contributions they send to the Debian infrastructure (package,
commit, mail, …) themselves;
- any content uploaded that would end up in production on Debian
infrastructure (main git branch, package upload) has been
submitted by them explicitely.
- Work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool should be marked as
such in the adapted place (commit message, changelog, …). Some
lightweight generative tools, such as tab-completion in Copilot, may
be used without the contributor realising they rely on generative AI
models; we therefore trust submitters to assess when this rule
applies. When in doubt, add such marking;
- No cloud-based AI shall be used when the data transmitted could
either be sensitive to the project (personal data, information under
embargo, …) or not public (debian-private discussions, …).
Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
==========================================
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted
contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at
the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes
without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR
process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot
come to a consensus.
Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools
in the development, maintenance, or documentation of software,
packaging, documentation, and other media published within the Debian
Project. We recognize that such tools can substantially improve the
productivity of contributors when used responsibly, allowing
volunteers to spend more of their limited time on work that requires
technical expertise, judgment, review, and collaboration.
The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions
submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were
produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness,
maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool
does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they
submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and,
where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it
into Debian. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material
without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian's
established development practices. We enourage our contributors to
disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not
require them to do so.
Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by
generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in
many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright,
authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training
material. The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal
questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a
position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part,
copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works.
Instead, Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility
of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to
exercise appropriate care when using generative AI tools, to consider
the provenance and licensing implications of material they contribute,
and to avoid introducing content whose legal status they cannot
reasonably justify. Existing Debian policies governing licensing,
copyright, software freedom, and the acceptance of contributions
continue to apply irrespective of the tools used to produce those
contributions.
Contributors are expected to exercise appropriate care when designing
and implementing workflows that incorporate generative AI tools. In
particular, they should ensure that confidential information, private
communications, security-sensitive information (such as embargoed
information about security bugs that is not yet public), cryptographic
keys, credentials, and other non-public material relating to the
Debian Project, its infrastructure, or its community are not disclosed
to third-party AI services unless such disclosure has been explicitly
authorized and is consistent with Debian's security and privacy
requirements.
The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established
expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions.
Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact,
such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code
modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many
packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus
through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. Any such
automated process should be overseen by a human who remains
accountable for its behavior and output.
This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt
from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already
expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every
contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains
accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and
suitability for inclusion in Debian.
Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI
==============================================
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues
the following statement describing its current position regarding the
use of generative AI within Debian.
Debian recognizes that generative AI raises significant ethical,
legal, technical, and social concerns. These include questions
relating to copyright and licensing, privacy, the provenance and
quality of generated material, the health of Free Software
communities, and the long-term consequences of widespread reliance on
AI-generated content.
Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of
generative AI where practical and to prefer human authorship,
collaboration, and technical understanding over AI-generated output.
At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and
responsibility of its contributors rather than prescribing individual
workflows. Contributors remain responsible for everything they submit,
irrespective of the tools used in preparing a contribution. Existing
Debian standards regarding quality, correctness, licensing, and legal
compliance continue to apply.
Contributors using external generative AI services should exercise
particular care not to disclose confidential information, embargoed
security information, credentials, cryptographic keys, private
communications, personal data, or other non-public Debian information.
Nothing in this resolution should be understood as requiring
contributors to use generative AI, nor as preventing contributors or
maintainers from choosing not to use or accept AI-assisted
contributions. Debian's existing collaborative processes remain the
appropriate means for resolving such differences while allowing the
project to continue making progress.
While disclosure is not required, contributors are encouraged to
voluntarily disclose the use of generative AI where appropriate,
allowing others who prefer not to interact with AI-assisted content to
make informed choices.
Such disclosure should be regarded as a courtesy to fellow
contributors rather than an indication that AI-assisted contributions
are subject to different technical or procedural standards.
The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and
professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the
responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the
technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers,
Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality
values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
Choice 7: Debian is created by humans
=====================================
Preamble
--------
This proposal aims to ensure that contributions directly to Debian are
created by humans, while at the same time avoiding restrictions on the
tools those humans may choose to use when contributing.
The proposal deals with direct contributions to Debian, including, but
not limited to:
- Debian packaging
- Submissions (messages, bug reports, patches, etc.) to the BTS,
Salsa, mailing lists and other Debian platforms
- Debian project software
- Debian infrastructure
- Debian web resources
- Documentation and translation added as part of contributing to
Debian
- Official communication from Debian
The proposal does not cover indirect contributions, i.e. those
originating from upstream works.
Generative AI is characterized by producing output of a nature that
would ordinarily be produced and consumed by humans. The proposal
seeks to restrict this output itself from entering Debian (except
possibly indirectly, from upstream). It does not seek to restrict
Debian contributors from consuming such output as part of contributing
to Debian.
Rationale
---------
Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is
crucial to its position in the free software ecosystem. It is our
belief that a significant part of this stability comes from Debian
contributors having mutual understanding, trust and respect for each
others' work and precious time. Generative AI tends to come with
practical, legal, ethical or ecological concerns that warrant care or
extra work that often ends up being borne by people other than those
wielding the AI. We believe that this asymmetry between contributors
leveraging generative AI to produce material, and those humans who
bear that extra care and work, will erode the project's mutual
understanding, trust and respect.
While Debian has a long-standing tradition of strict rules for what
goes into the distribution, it does not typically dictate what tools
people use when contributing to the project. With this principle in
mind, the proposal does not affect the use of generative AI as an
assisitive tool to explore, research, analyze, critique, etc., when
contributing. The responsibilities that come with using the output of
an AI in such a role is then not transferred onto the wider project in
the same problematic way as when the output itself is the
contribution.
Proposal
--------
In order to safeguard the project's mutual understanding, trust and
respect, we disallow the output of generative AI as direct
contributions to Debian.
Those who use such tools assistively in their work are reminded to
ensure that the resulting contribution is in line with the DFSG and
the Social Contract in general.
In summary, humans create Debian.
Acknowledgements
----------------
This proposal is inspired by GCC's AI Policy [1] and rust-lang's LLM
Usage Policy [2]. Its wording is influenced by another ballot option
[3].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html
[2] https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/llm-usage.html
[3] https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texta
Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker
=====================================================================
LLM usage accelerates the destruction of our ecosystem (planet earth)
and that is a deal-breaker
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues
the following statement describing its current position regarding the
use of LLM (Large Language Models) within Debian.
We don't have a concern with the LLM _technology_ as such: it's just
maths and enough training material, which outputs a very large set of
numbers that we can use to infer new material from existing material.
But we cannot talk about the LLM technology without talking about who
is pushing for its usage, who is doing the training and how, what
effect those have on our limited resources, and what are the
economical and political motives of these.
Foremost we don't understand how anyone can agree that global LLM
usage accelerates the destruction of our ecosystem, planet earth, and
not feel like that is a deal-breaker.
Too often the only response we've seen to this point was that other
activities are also bad (some even worse) for the climate. How is this
even an argument? The planet is burning, we should try to stop that as
much and as fast as we can! If others aren't stopping, isn't that even
more reason to compensate for their irresponsible actions?
And while we're on that point: All of our users live on this planet,
so protecting this planet is a matter of life and death for all of us.
In other words, caring about something as big as climate change during
our Debian work is self evident.
Debian recognizes that LLM *also* raise significant ethical, legal,
technical, and social concerns. These include questions relating to
copyright and licensing, privacy, the provenance and quality of
generated material, the health of Free Software communities, and the
long-term consequences of widespread reliance on LLM-generated
content.
That said, we would like to emphasize that we condemn LLM (resource)
usage but not LLM users. Fight the game, but not the players.
We also acknowledge that LLM usage can be hard if not impossible to
detect and that Debian as a distribution cannot really impose LLM
policies on other projects we package and distribute. Therefore this
text is just a position statement. This said however, we appreciate
the disclosure of LLM usage.
Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of LLM
where practical and to prefer human authorship, collaboration, and
technical understanding over LLM-generated output.
At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and
responsibility of its contributors rather than prescribing individual
workflows. Contributors remain responsible for everything they submit,
irrespective of the tools used in preparing a contribution. Existing
Debian standards regarding quality, correctness, licensing, and legal
compliance continue to apply.
The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and
professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the
responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the
technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers,
Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality
values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
Please keep being excellent to each other and the only planet we have.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=DRbR
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: