데비안(Debian), LLM 사용에 대한 총투표 진행

Skip Quicknav Blog Micronews Planet Wiki Debian Voting Information / 2026 / General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian Home Home Vote Page How To Submit a Proposal Amend a Proposal Follow a Proposal • Vote * Read a Result --> In Discussion General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian Decided Debian Project Leader Elections 2026 Debian Project Leader Elections 2025 Debian Project Leader Elections 2024 General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive" Debian Project Leader Elections 2023 General Resolution: non-free firmware Debian Project Leader Elections 2022 General Resolution: Voting secrecy General Resolution: Change the resolution process General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board Debian Project Leader Elections 2021 Debian Project Leader Elections 2020 General Resolution: Init systems and systemd Debian Project Leader Elections 2019 Debian Project Leader Elections 2018 Debian Project Leader Elections 2017 General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private General Resolution: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private Debian Project Leader Elections 2016 General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure Debian Project Leader Elections 2015 General Resolution: Limiting the term of the technical committee members General Resolution: init system coupling General Resolution: code of conduct Debian Project Leader Elections 2014 Debian Project Leader Elections 2013 General Resolution: Diversity statement Debian Project Leader Elections 2012 Debian Project Leader Elections 2011 General Resolution: Debian project members Debian Project Leader Elections 2010 Debian Project Leader Elections 2009 General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations General Resolution: Project membership procedures Debian Project Leader Elections 2008 Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers General Resolution: Altering package upload rules Debian Project Leader Elections 2007 General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader General Resolution: Recall the project leader General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2 Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the project Debian Project Leader Elections 2006 General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives Debian Project Leader Elections 2005 General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003 General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract General Resolution: Status of the non-free section Debian Project Leader Elections 2004 Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 Constitutional Amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD Voting Method Debian Project Leader Elections 2003 Debian Project Leader Elections 2002 Leader Elections 2001 Leader Elections 2000 Swap Logos New Logo Logo License Leader Elections 1999 Constitution Withdrawn General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models General Resolution: tag2upload General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure General Resolution: Sponsorship requirements for General Resolutions General Resolution: Force AMD64 architecture into Sarge IRC as a Debian communication channel Other Superseded: Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying Superseded: Constitutional amendment: alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5 Superseded: Constitutional amendment: disambiguation of 4.1.5 Superseded: Non-free Archive Removal General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian Time Line Proposal A Proposer Proposal A Seconds Proposal A Proposal B Proposer Proposal B Seconds Proposal B Proposal C Proposer Proposal C Seconds Proposal C Time Line Discussion Period: 2026-07-24 Proposal A Proposer Matthias Geiger [ werdahias@debian.org ] [ text of proposal ] Proposal A Seconds Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues [ josch@debian.org ] [ mail ] Antoine Le Gonidec [ vv221@debian.org ] [ mail ] Simon Richter [ sjr@debian.org ] [ mail ] David Bremner [ bremner@debian.org ] [ mail ] Pierre-Elliott Bécue [ peb@debian.org ] [ mail ] Ian Jackson [ iwj@debian.org ] [ mail ] Amin Bandali [ bandali@debian.org ] [ mail ] Thorsten Glaser [ tg@debian.org ] [ mail ] Proposal A Choice 1 Preamble This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools. The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive): Debian source packages Official Debian project software, such as lintian Debian web resources Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors Official communication from Debian It does not include: Upstream projects using LLMs for development AI-related software Upstream patches/security fixes etc. Rationale Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is crucial to Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. It is our belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors. In practical terms, LLM usage raises the following concerns: 1. Copyright LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be possible to copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all of the licenses and copyrights in the training data, or not. Debian Policy and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing and copyright[1][2]. Software and other contributions written conventionally by humans with unclear copyright or license status are not allowed in Debian; LLM output should not have a special exception to this. 2. Quality LLM output has many well-known problems with accuracy.[3][4][5] A LLM can never "know" if its output is correct since it merely produces syntactically likely combinations of the training data. In some environments this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For instance, in packaging, each Debian source package is unique. Since packaging syntax and best practices have changed over time, a LLM-produced package will have a mixture of contents spanning the age of the archive, with watch files that do not work, overrides out of context, imaginary copyright, and will generally be unfit for upload. A seasoned Debian contributor with packaging expertise may find some limited usefulness here, but a new contributor cannot, and would not know how to fix it. These same quality and accuracy concerns apply clearly to all of the areas listed in the scope of this proposal above. If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain experts who never leave, this might not be an issue; however, 3. Community Debian is a project that is more than just code: it is a community built on shared interests in free software and solving technical problems. Debian intentionally grows this community through many means, and new contributors are always encouraged to join. Allowing LLM contributions breaks this. New contributors submitting LLM output for review places an unnecessary strain on the reviewer, which can lead to burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent new contributors do not actually learn and understand the details of Debian packaging or processes, so they cannot come to replace a former burned out DD. 4. Ethics LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as whole by scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for license, copyright, or even established conventions such as robots.txt.[6] This has had a major negative impact on Debian's public web resources, effectively a large scale and perpetual Denial of Service attack on sites t