GCC steering committee announces AI policy [LWN.net]

LWN<br>.net<br>News from the source

Content Weekly Edition<br>Archives<br>Search<br>Kernel<br>Security<br>Events calendar<br>Unread comments

LWN FAQ<br>Write for us

Edition Return to the Briefs page

User:<br>Password: |

Log in /<br>Subscribe /<br>Register

GCC steering committee announces AI policy

[Posted July 29, 2026 by jzb]

The GCC steering committee has announced<br>that it has accepted an<br>AI contributions policy recommended by the GCC AI policy working<br>group.

The policy, in part, states that the project will decline any<br>"legally significant contributions which include LLM-generated<br>content or are derived from LLM-generated content". It uses the definition<br>of "legally significant" from the GNU Project maintainer guidelines,<br>which holds that the threshold is "around 15 lines of code and/or<br>text" to qualify as significant for copyright purposes. GCC<br>maintainers may, however, choose to accept legally significant test<br>cases that are generated by an LLM.

The policy does not forbid use of LLMs for research, analysis, bug<br>discovery and reporting, patch review, etc. as long as the output is<br>not included in contributions. The committee says that it expects the<br>policy will evolve and will be revisited periodically.

to post comments

Rules

Posted Jul 29, 2026 22:18 UTC (Wed)<br>by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)<br>[Link] (9 responses)

Unenforceable rules that punish honesty breed dishonesty and contempt for rules in general. Denying it is denying human nature, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of denying nature.

AI is here to stay. New programmers are brought up on it. Most of the industry sees nothing wrong with it. Do anti-LLM types expect to be vindicated in an orgy of copyright lawsuits that resets the industry back to 2022? What do people pushing expect to accomplish?

Rules

Posted Jul 29, 2026 22:56 UTC (Wed)<br>by pizza (subscriber, #46)<br>[Link] (7 responses)

> Most of the industry sees nothing wrong with it.

Of _course "industry sees nothing wrong with it" -- They will gladly fire every single worker that they think they can replace with a machine. Especially when said machine is still priced well below cost. Make no mistake, this is their ultimate goal.

Why is anyone not surprised that some folks are not enthusiastically building their own gallows?

"The true purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill without allowing skill to access wealth."

Rules

Posted Jul 29, 2026 23:31 UTC (Wed)<br>by bluca (subscriber, #118303)<br>[Link] (6 responses)

Making up silly rules that nobody will follow won't do anything to stop capitalism behaving as it always had for the past 200 odd years. We do know what actually works: join a trade union and unionize the workplace.

Rules

Posted Jul 29, 2026 23:38 UTC (Wed)<br>by alx.manpages (subscriber, #145117)<br>[Link] (5 responses)

*nobody*? Are you accusing *everybody* of being dishonest in this regard? We have a saying in Spanish: "cree el ladron que todos son de su condicion".

If *you*, and possibly a reduced number of people, would willingly break the rules, that's up to you. But please don't insult everybody else.

There are people that don't want to do anything with AI.

And there are people that they wish they could, but respect the maintainers of the project, and thus avoid using it for the project.

Rules

Posted Jul 30, 2026 0:38 UTC (Thu)<br>by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)<br>[Link] (4 responses)

It's human nature. Are there saints out there? Sure, but you'd be foolish to act as if everyone were one. If you want to achieve your goals, you must model the world accurately so you can take actions that advance your goals. If you act according to an inaccurate model, your actions will not advance your goals and will likely make a fool of yourself.

Fact is, the way people work, no-AI policies will produce covert AI use. You may not like it, but it's true, because it's human nature. It will continue to be human nature even if you accuse people who notice why people are bad of being bad themselves. "Reality is what's still there when you close your eyes".

Since we're exchange Spanish wisdom, I'd encourage you to read what Cervantes had to say about noble self-deception.

Rules

Posted Jul 30, 2026 1:32 UTC (Thu)<br>by pizza (subscriber, #46)<br>[Link]

> It's human nature. Are there saints out there? Sure, but you'd be foolish to act as if everyone were one.

This isn't about the choices/actions of "everyone else", it's about the choices and actions *you* make for yourself. To a lesser extent, it's about sorts of folks you choose to voluntarily associate with.

Sure, some folks lie, cheat and steal. Does that mean we all should enthusiastically emulate them?

Rules

Posted Jul 30, 2026 2:06 UTC (Thu)<br>by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)<br>[Link] (2 responses)

no-AI policies will produce covert AI use

I seriously doubt that. I think it's much more likely that people who want to use AI just won't contribute to projects with no-AI policies.

And as I wrote...