Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

gitlab.redox-os.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 504 posts

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#381

Post by _zagj »

khalic wrote: post #228
_zagj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The LLM ban is unenforceable Just require that the CLA/Certificate of Origin statement be printed out, signed, and mailed with an envelope and stamp, where besides attesting that they appropriately license their contributions ((A)GPL, BSD, MIT, or whatever) and have the authority to do so, that they also attest that they haven't used any LLMs for their contributions. This will strongly deter direct LLM usage. Indir…

Sarcasm? Nobody will be contributing with a complexe signing process like that, and it doesn't guarantee anything in the end, it's like a high tech pinky swear

Lots of projects have had requirements like this for years, usually to prevent infection by (A)GPL's virality, or in the case of the FSF, so they can sue on your behalf, or less scrupulously, so the project can re-license itself or dual license itself in the future should the maintainers opt to. (This last part was traditionally the only part that elicited objections to CLAs.)

> it's like a high tech pinky swear

So is you attesting you didn't contribute any GPL'd code (which, incidentally, you arguably can't do if you're using LLMs trained on GPL'd code), and no one seemed to have issues with that, yet when it's extended to LLMs, the concern trolling starts in earnest. It's also legally binding .

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#382

Post by [deleted] »

menaerus wrote: post #80

Let someone from the Redox team go read [1], [2], and [3]. If they still insist on keeping their position then ... well. The industry is being redefined as we speak and everyone doing the push-back are pushing against themselves really. [1] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/harness-first-agents/ [2] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/fully-autonomous-optimizat... [3] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/self-opt…

[deleted]

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#383

Post by _zagj »

khalic wrote: post #244
_zagj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always assumed this was the case anyway; MIT is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the mostly used licenses No, it wasn't that way in the 2000s, e.g., on platforms like SourceForge, where OSS devs would go out of their way to learn the terms and conditions of the popular licenses and made sure to respect each other's license choices, and usually defaulted to GPL (or LGPL), unless there was a compelling reason not to: h…

... you think It was good time? Not being able to publish anything without sifting through all the libs licences? Remembering legalese, jurisprudence, edge cases, on top of everything else? MIT became ubiquitous because it gives us peace of mind

> ... you think It was good time?

Yes, as do, probably, most people who remember it.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#384

Post by [deleted] »

menaerus wrote: post #87
stingraycharles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s such a silly take. “Our approach is harness-first engineering: instead of reading every line of agent-generated code, invest in automated checks that can tell us with high confidence, in seconds, whether the code is correct. “ that’s literally what The whole industry has been doing for decades, and spoiler: you still need to review code! it just gives you confidence that you didn’t miss anything. Also, without…

So you read the three-part series of blogs that are packed in details in 3 minutes after I shared the link and put yourself into a position of entitled opinion and calling my position a silly take? Sure thing.

[deleted]

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#385

Post by sh4zb0t »

lifis wrote: post #16

Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense. What makes sense if that of course any LLM-generated code must be reviewed by a good programmer and must be correct and well written, and the AI usage must be precisely disclosed. What they should ban is people posting AI-generated code without mentioning it or replying "I don't know, the AI did it like that" to…

> Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense.

Terry Davis built a full OS with his own editor, compiler and language. I think Redox can survive just fine without LLMs

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#386

Post by cyanydeez »

zozbot234 wrote: post #123
stabbles wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For well-intended open source contributions using GenAI, my current rules of thumb are: * Prefer an issue over a PR (after iterating on the issue, either you or the maintainer can use it as a prompt) * Only open a PR if the review effort is less than the implementation effort. Whether the latter is feasible depends on the project, but in one of the projects I'm involved in it's fairly obvious: it's a package manager…

Unfortunately, LLMs generate useless word salad and nonsense even when working on issues text, you absolutely have to reword the writing from scratch otherwise it's just an annoyance and a complete waste of time. Even a good prompt doesn't help this all that much since it's just how the tool works under the hood: it doesn't have a goal of saying anything specific in the clearest possible way and inwardly rewording it…

So many people and systems have some how merged into just a slathering of spam to everyones senses. It's no longer about truth statements, but just, is this attention-worthy, and most of the internet, it's social media and "people" are going into the no-bin.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#387

Post by logicprog »

hunterpayne wrote: post #374
logicprog wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is maintaining a personal patch set / fork parasitic? And in what way does it harm them, such that they should move to spaces where it doesn't happen, as a result? Also, isn't the entire point of open source precisely to enable people to make and use modifications of code if they want even if they don't want to hand code over? Also, that would be essentially making code closed source — do you think OSS is…

Its only parasitic if you are tricking users into thinking you are the original or providing something better. You could be providing something different (which would be valuable) but if you are not, you are just scamming users for your own benefit.

I have no intention of tricking anyone into thinking I'm the original! I do think I offer improvements in some cases, so in cases where the project is something I intend for other people to ever see/use, I do explain why I think it is better, but I also will always put the original prominently to make sure people can find their way back to that if they want to. For example, the only time I've done this so far:

https://github.com/alexispurslane/jjdag

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#388

Post by logicprog »

Qwertious wrote: post #372
logicprog wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vibe coders don't have to do any of this. They don't have to understand anything, they can just have their LLMs do some modifications that are completely opaque to the vibe coder. I spend time using my agent to better understand existing codebases and their best practices than I'd ever have the time/energy to do before, giving me a broader and more holistic view on whatever I'm changing, before I make a change.

Okay, but you don't have to - and "efficient" coders won't bother, thus starving the commons.

Well, I would argue that if I didn't spend that time, then even a personal fork that I vibe coded would be worse, even for me personally. It would be incompatible with upstream changes, more likely to crash or have bugs, more difficult to modify in the future (and cause drift in the model's own output) etc.

I always find it odd that people say both that vibe coding has obvious and immediate negative consequences in terms of quality and at the same time that nobody could learn or be incentivized to produce better architecture and code quality from vibe coding when they would obviously face those consequences.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#389

Post by butILoveLife »

hananova wrote: post #349
butILoveLife wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you and Redox just going to fall behind? Projects that used to take months take days or hours. It seems well intentioned, but lots of bad ideas are like this. I was told by my customer they didn't need my help because Claude Code did the program they wanted me to quote. I sheepishly said, 'I can send an intern to work in-house if you don't want to spend internal resources on it.' I can't really imagine what kind…

Projects that used to take months still take months. LLM’s are only useful for throwaway low-quality slop. Perhaps some times the sloperator will get lucky and the end result isn’t something that will bite them in the ass. But the rest of us foresee a mountain of tech debt that will come knocking one day.

This is like 2 months outdated.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#390

Post by calvinmorrison »

integralid wrote: post #347
calvinmorrison wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an AI can replace you at your job, you are not a very good programmer. Me and millions of other local yokel programmers who work in regional cities at small shops, in house at businesses, etc are absolutely COOKED. No I cant leet code, no I didnt go to MIT, no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function. I can scrap together a lot of useful business stuff but no I am not a very good programmer.

>no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function This is really, honestly not hard. Spend a few minutes reading about this, or even better, ask a LLM to explain it to you and clear your misconceptions if regular blog posts don't do it for you. This is one of the concepts that sounds scarier than it is. edit: To be clear there are tough academic cases where complexity is harder to compute, with weird fun…

its not hard. Accounting isnt that hard either. I just know more business crap than programming
Post reply on HN