The wording is weird. But the project (openslop) defines permissive as basically having a path for AI to enter the code. This lumps together both measured approaches like NetBSD’s and fully embracing slop contributions in the same category.
I think this only makes sense if you view AI contributions as a taint, something that threatens the licensing of a project. In that optic, it really is an all or nothing. But it doesn’t help users choose among the options as much.
IIRC in other listed projects, once there was a policy permitting LLM generation under some condition, generated code did eventually get merged. Therefore, “permissive”.
There were more commits, the scanner basically checks the most recent history and stops, just to confirm that the project still allows LLMs. I don’t have a laptop or good internet right now to clone the entire repo and grep logs.
Before I refreshed it there were 4 flagged commits, all from September 1st. Since then there was one new LLM-assisted commit so it looks like the rate is decreasing.
That is good to know. I’ve also just checked the commits, and now I’m unsure if the LLM-related lines actually signified LLM use or just were copied from updated software changelogs. I will remove my above comment and stop with this topic until I learn more.
But how is requiring explicit approval (meaning it’s not something that is typically allowed) considered “permissive”?
The wording is weird. But the project (openslop) defines permissive as basically having a path for AI to enter the code. This lumps together both measured approaches like NetBSD’s and fully embracing slop contributions in the same category.
I think this only makes sense if you view AI contributions as a taint, something that threatens the licensing of a project. In that optic, it really is an all or nothing. But it doesn’t help users choose among the options as much.
IIRC in other listed projects, once there was a policy permitting LLM generation under some condition, generated code did eventually get merged. Therefore, “permissive”.
Upd: it does look like the package manifests (needed to use the OS in practice) are increasingly LLM-assisted https://slopscan.ava.pet/repo/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FNetBSD%2Fpkgsrc
On fedi I read that Drew DeVault is porting a fork of the Alpine ecosystem on top of the NetBSD core, which might be an answer to that.
Do those two commits count as “increasingly”?
There were more commits, the scanner basically checks the most recent history and stops, just to confirm that the project still allows LLMs. I don’t have a laptop or good internet right now to clone the entire repo and grep logs.
Before I refreshed it there were 4 flagged commits, all from September 1st. Since then there was one new LLM-assisted commit so it looks like the rate is decreasing.
That is good to know. I’ve also just checked the commits, and now I’m unsure if the LLM-related lines actually signified LLM use or just were copied from updated software changelogs. I will remove my above comment and stop with this topic until I learn more.