Direct link to the LLM Policy Discussion: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/plasma-workspace/-/work_items/187
Example of KDE dev rejecting environmental consideration:
Example of KDE devs not wanting to require LLM use be disclosed.
And all of this is coming right after the debacle with an AI slop project being allowed to give a presentation at Akademy, and the person asking how this was allowed being blocked by KDE:
https://lemmy.nz/post/42029517
as well as the discussion thread bringing up legitimate concerns about AI usage being closed:
https://discuss.kde.org/t/sorry-to-bring-up-a-contentious-topic-kde-ai-llm-policy/46333/164
As someone who genuinely loves KDE, and has even donated to the project multiple times, I sadly have to accept that the majority of KDE have hopped onto the Pro-AI train, and they will not be dissuaded otherwise.
They literally may not have any control over the license, that is one of the many big problems people have. Please read the article linked by OP about the copyrightabilty of LLM generated code - https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html. It depends heavily on how they used the LLM, so if there is zero disclosure required the entire project could get into licensing hell down the road.
Yes obviously the code you commit must be yours and you need to make sure it is. That is already a rule, what’s the point of telling people how to work above that?
Due to the nature of LLMs being trained on existing code there is a chance that generated code is lifted verbatim from another piece of software whose license doesn’t permit the copy without attribution. Its a potential legal minefield that I think FOSS project should just steer clear of until the legal landscape surrounding generative AI cools off some.