Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by throwaway2037 » Sun, Mar 15, 2026, 11:28 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #226

subjectsigma wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat off topic, but I can’t believe someone got paid to write that article, what a load of crap. It’s like saying that fallacies don’t exist because sometimes people incorrectly claim the other side is arguing fallaciously. If you go by the literal definition in the article, it’s very clear what OP meant when he said the AI policy is virtue-signaling, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the culture war.

It's not a useful phrase because a "we accept AI-generated contributions" is also virtue signalling. You have no doubt heard claims that AI "democratizes" software development. This is an argument that AI use for that case is virtuous. You have no doubt heard claims that AI "decreases cognition ability." This is an argument that not using AI for software development is virtuous. Which is correct depends strongly on y…

Ok, the replace virtue signaling with: This is the latest popular action from performative OSS projects.

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

#502

Post by eesmith » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #501

eesmith wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a useful phrase because a "we accept AI-generated contributions" is also virtue signalling. You have no doubt heard claims that AI "democratizes" software development. This is an argument that AI use for that case is virtuous. You have no doubt heard claims that AI "decreases cognition ability." This is an argument that not using AI for software development is virtuous. Which is correct depends strongly on y…

Ok, the replace virtue signaling with: This is the latest popular action from performative OSS projects.

Calling something "performative", like "virtue signalling" or the older "politically correct", is also a claim that the other party is making the argument under false pretenses.

In all cases, the implication is that it's worthless to discuss the stated issue (in this case, the rejection of LLM-generated contributions) because the real issue is something else.

I've seen LLM-generated software contain code which was clearly derived from an MIT-licensed code base, and where the generated code did include proper attribution.

The USL v. BSDi lawsuit teaches us that operating system developers must be cautious about copyright attribution.

I see no need to conjecture the existence of some hidden reason, as you seemingly have. In addition, the performative game can go both ways. Eg, "Your comment is performative cover for the slap in the face you feel as a coder who uses a lot of LLM support." But that would be malicious conjecture. IMO, any claim of "performative" without support is just bog-boring flaming.

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

#503

Post by pmarreck » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

eschaton wrote: post #497

pmarreck wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like someone who has literally zero understanding as to why that is a ridiculous comparison. There are a thousand and one ways that I participate when building something with LLM assistance. Everything from ORIGINATING AN IDEA TO BEGIN WITH, to working on a thorough spec for it, to ensuring tests are actually valid, to asking for specific designs like hexagonal design, to specific things like benchmarks...…

I started working in the industry when you were able to buy a Lisp Machine new and have been studying AI even longer, and I’ve been very successful in it. I not only know what I’m talking about, I have the experience to back it up. You sound like someone who’s deeply in denial about exactly how the LLM plagiarism machines work. You really do sound like a student defending themselves against a plagiarism charge by ass…

By that definition, every single human who wrote a paper after reading a source document is a “plagiarism machine”

and I’m 53 and well remember Symbolics from freshman year at Cornell, in fact my application essay to it was about fuzzy logic (AI-tangential) and probably got me in, so I too am quite familiar

i’m also quite good at debate. the flaw in your logic is that plagiarism requires accountability and no machine can be accountable, only the human that used it, ergo, it is still the work of the human, because the human values, the human vets, the human initiates, and the human gains or loses based on the combined output, end of story; accelerated thought is still thought, and anyway, if a machine can replicate thought, then it wasn’t particularly original to begin with

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

#504

Post by okanat » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #429

okanat wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. People shared code because they wanted to. Open standards are great tools against emerging monopolies. So the losing side used that. IBM lost OS/2 vs NT war. They propped up Linux. Intel wanted to have a second option to Microsoft in server space. AMD wants to gain some developers against Nvidia Cuda monopoly. That's the reason they contribute. Even Linux's own leadership decided against extra freedoms for users;…

Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them. I usually prefer writing drivers and weird protocols from scratch,…

> Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them.

How many open drivers released for Adreno GPUs are there from Qualcomm? Does Apple release GPL drivers? How did the FOSS driver project for Nvidia worked out, are there any useable and truly FOSS drivers for Nvidia GPUs as the market leader, were they convinced that they are forced to develop a fully open driver including the user space?

> Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on.

I disagree. If there is enough economic interest to support open ecosystem as a weapon, you'd get open drivers / software like Intel and AMDGPU or Valve's Steam Deck. This is not a benefit nor a result of GPL. The main correlation is the existence of a significant dominant company and smaller not as dominant but still large enough companies that can supply significant resources into an open standard. Linux and other open source projects are used as a means to challenge and overthrow the significant players who almost always keep as many things as secret to not lose their position. If there was no Linux, another OS, most likely a BSD would get the same investments from IBM et al. This has been a proven strategy that worked for many other industries before computers even existed.