• refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    But how is requiring explicit approval (meaning it’s not something that is typically allowed) considered “permissive”?

    • Colloidal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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.

        • Denys Nykula@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

          • misk@piefed.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            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.

            • Denys Nykula@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              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.