{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib3x3gmo5dvq5u576mg7d2do4vl7rejvybh2eoftj4r3gxkvktwpa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:34cg4tn4iwemk3v5k3n3adwf/app.bsky.feed.post/3mf2ck4h4bqg2"
  },
  "path": "/t/f-droid-policy-on-libre-ai/33279?page=2#post_27",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-17T08:18:46.000Z",
  "site": "https://forum.f-droid.org",
  "tags": [
    "@Licaon_Kter",
    "use of auto-generated code in submitted patches",
    "Developer Certificate of Origin",
    "@shuvashish76"
  ],
  "textContent": "I think what @Licaon_Kter was trying to share with us in 2025 was this section of the Emersion contributor guidelines that addresses the use of auto-generated code in submitted patches;\n\n> “Vegetarians don’t force their eating habits onto everybody else. In the same spirit, regardless of the reviewer’s opinion about large language models (LLMs), patches written with the help of LLMs aren’t outright rejected as long as:\n\n  * > The patch author has a full understanding of the submitted code. The author has carefully reviewed the output of the tool used to generate the patch.\n\n  * > The patch (and assorted description) is indistinguishable from one fully written by a human. In particular, the submission doesn’t contain huge walls of unnecessary text or code.\n\n  * > The patch author agrees to the Developer Certificate of Origin. In particular, the author certifies that they have the right to submit the patch under the project’s open-source license. This can be achieved by adding a `Signed-off-by` trailer to the commit description.\n\n  * > The patch author discloses their use of LLMs in the description. This can be achieved by adding an `Assisted-by` trailer to the commit description.\n\n\n\n\n> The reviewer may still decide to reject the patch without further justification.”\n\nThis is a good example of the kind of policy I’d like see drafted for the F-Droid project, to address the various software freedom issues raised by generative models. That said, it only addresses one of those sets of issues; auto-generation of code.\n\nAlso, that policy doesn’t protect the project against incorporation of whole chunks of proprietary code coughed up by a MOLE, or code under incompatible copyleft licenses. Any software I maintained would follow the Gentoo and Chezmoi examples shared by @shuvashish76 , and require contributors to certify that no auto-generated code was used to prepare the patch, to protect against that risk. Claims that this is akin to forcing dietary preferences on others is about as valid as making the same claims about food safety standards, as if some people _like_ food poisoning. In both case, it’s about protecting the community from potential harm.",
  "title": "F-Droid policy on libre \"AI\""
}