[josteink]

He made a patch in good faith, not knowing about these rules.

He’s point is that because he was coming at this with an honest, open approach he saw his work rejected.

His observation is that this will reward dishonest submissions which are NOT made in good faith. Ie rewarding the wrong things.

Incentives drives the outcome. What incentives does this give people?

[geocar]

> not knowing about these rules.

He didn’t look at the t&c for whatever model he was using and didn’t understand he had no copyright claim over its output?

He doesn’t have any rights to the code; he can’t assign them to the FSF.

> What incentives does this give people?

Hopefully to learn how to code so they can make their own contributions.

[grayhatter]

> Incentives drives the outcome. What incentives does this give people?

I understand this argument to be, if you stop people from doing something you don't want them to do to you, you're only incentivizing them to lie to you, before the do that exact same thing to you.

Is that the argument you're trying to make? Because I don't think the solution to wanting to exclude LLM codegen, is to ... not reject LLM generated patches because it might force other people to lie to get around the exclusion.

But, just to be clear, I think the argument that enforcing rules would induce someone to lie, is an insane argument to try to make.

[josteink]

I think a better frame would be «how could the maintainers have responded in a constructive, collaborative way upon learning about the tooling not being compliant with Emacs-standards, in a way which have helped land what was clearly a good faith effort aiming to make Emacs better?»

Outright rejecting the patches was IMO not a pragmatic or constructive choice and will drive the wrong incentives wether you morally approve of it or not.