Debian 投票信息：./../ / 2026：./ / 一般决议：Debian 中的 LLM 使用
Matthias Geiger [werdahias@debian.org：mailto:werdahias@debian.org] [提案文本：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00117.html]
本提案旨在明确禁止任何使用或借助大型语言模型 (LLM) 或其他生成式 AI 工具撰写的 Debian 贡献。
本一般决议的适用范围（非详尽）包括： Debian 源代码包 官方 Debian 项目软件，例如 lintian Debian 网络资源 由 Debian 贡献者添加的文档和翻译 来自 Debian 的官方通信
不包括： 使用 LLM 开发的上游项目 与 AI 相关的软件 上游补丁/安全修复等
Debian 拥有良好的稳定性声誉。这种稳定性对 Debian 在自由软件生态系统中的地位至关重要。我们认为，广泛使用 LLM 的背后是“快速前进，破坏事物”的心态，虽然在本行业的许多领域很常见，但这与 Debian 的核心理念相悖，对于 Debian 贡献者来说是不合适的。
Debian 项目不仅仅是代码：它是一个基于对自由软件和解决技术问题的共同兴趣而建立的社区。Debian 通过多种方式有意培养这一社区，并总是鼓励新贡献者加入。允许 LLM 贡献会破坏这一点。新贡献者提交 LLM 输出进行审查会给审查者带来不必要的压力，可能导致倦怠。此外，依赖 LLM 的新贡献者实际上并未真正学习或理解 Debian 包管理或流程的细节，因此无法替代曾经倦怠的 Debian 开发者。
Debian 有一份社会契约。[8] 我们的优先事项是用户和自由软件。Debian 是稳定的。[9] 用户和组织选择 Debian，因为它可靠且安全。
Debian 的目标不是生成尽可能多需要少数志愿者手动审查的代码，也不是打包所有软件，或匆忙推出新功能，但这些正是 LLM 被使用的目的。
总之，允许LLM贡献违背了社会契约和创建一个注重质量与稳定性的自由操作系统的共同目标。
为了不破坏Debian的声誉或进一步伤害社区，LLM辅助的贡献应禁止包含在Debian中。
尽管我们的立场是LLM贡献违反了Debian已批准的文件，为了消除所有疑虑，我们建议在社会契约中增加以下内容：
其他项目在探索类似决策时得到的常见回应是：“你们将如何执行对LLM贡献的禁令？”虽然执行可能是一项挑战，但这是Debian社区的意向声明，我们信任该社区会本着诚信遵守此意向。
引用仅用于背景信息，不表示对特定网站的认可。部分观点和用词来源于以下资料。
GNOME讨论：https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327 (CC0) Gentoo AI政策：https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy Codeberg AI政策：https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
本文档由Matthias Geiger和Jesse Rhodes撰写，并得到Sledge和josch的反馈，完全由人编写，未使用语言模型辅助。
Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org：mailto:lucas@debian.org] [提案文本：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00018.html] [修正案文本：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00048.html] [修正案文本：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00083.html]
根据宪法第4.1（5）条赋予的权力，项目发布以下声明，描述其当前对AI辅助贡献的立场。该声明描述的是项目采纳时的立场。随着时间推移，该立场可能会演变，无需诉诸未来的全体决议。如果项目需要决策且无法达成共识，GR流程依然可用。
Debian 项目认识到，AI 辅助的贡献带来了许多问题，例如关于此类贡献的技术质量和可维护性，以及它们的法律地位。AI 本身也引发了额外的担忧，例如其对整个社会、IT 行业和自由软件的影响；对环境的影响；以及 AI 抓取者的激进或不合规行为。
尽管如此，许多 Debian 贡献者在为 Debian 做贡献时发现 AI 工具很有帮助，并最终有助于改进 Debian。
鉴于 AI 辅助既有益处又有风险，以及社区内的争议性讨论，Debian 项目认为有必要明确其对 AI 辅助贡献的立场并制定明确的指南。
Ian Jackson [iwj@debian.org：mailto:iwj@debian.org] [提案文本：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00118.html]
大型语言模型（LLM）存在许多严重问题，包括：破坏自由软件社区建设机制；造成环境损害；剥削作者；通过激进抓取破坏开放网络托管；生成和传播虚假信息；污染信息公共领域；对用户心理健康构成危害；经济泡沫；扭曲计算机硬件市场；欺诈；被可怕的人与公司所控制；等等。伦理和安全地使用这项技术几乎是不可能的。
理想情况下，LLM 的输出不应成为我们依赖的软件的一部分，也不应替代人类撰写的文字。
不幸的是，更广泛的软件世界，包括我们的许多上游项目，持有不同观点。因此，目前在 Debian 中完全禁止使用 LLM 输出是不切实际的。
1. 我们请求所有 Debian 贡献者在其 Debian 工作中避免使用 LLM。
2. 我们请求 Debian 内的所有决策者尽可能劝阻 LLM 的使用。实用性需要判断，我们承认这将涉及令人不适的妥协。
3. 我们请求所有人，即使在 Debian 之外，也应避免使用这项技术。特别是自由软件和开源社区应拒绝 LLM。我们认识到，并非所有人都会响应这一呼吁。
4. 在 Debian 内，面向人类的消息（例如错误报告、邮件列表消息、Salsa 上的讨论以及 Planet Debian 上的博客帖子）必须完全由人类撰写，不得使用大型语言模型（LLM）辅助。
5. 对 Debian 工作使用 LLM 的任何情况必须披露。
6. 单个项目和维护者可以完全禁止 LLM 贡献。此类禁令（包括上游项目的禁令）必须被尊重。
7. 违反这些要求的行为应视为违反行为准则，应该导致迅速但适度的纪律处分。
8. 任何觉得自己在没有帮助的情况下无法用英语书写的贡献者，可以使用其母语书写，并期望读者使用他们选择的翻译工具。在这种情况下，人类撰写的英文摘要将非常欢迎，但不是必须的。无论如何，我们承诺不会因为任何语言错误而羞辱任何人。
Pierre-Elliott Bécue [peb@debian.org：mailto:peb@debian.org] [提案文本：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00089.html]
然而，Debian 承认这些做法已经在使用中，并可能长期存在。与其禁止使用这类工具，这看起来既无益又难以执行，项目选择将责任放在贡献者身上，因此制定了以下指南。
返回 Debian 项目主页：../../。
请参阅我们的联系页面：../../contact 以取得联系。网站源代码可在以下网址获取：https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml。
Debian Voting Information：./../ / 2026：./ / General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian
Matthias Geiger [werdahias@debian.org：mailto:werdahias@debian.org] [text of proposal：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00117.html]
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.
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.
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.
Debian has a Social Contract. [8] Our priorities are our users and free software. Debian is Stable. [9] Users and organizations choose Debian because it is reliable and secure.
Debian is not here to generate as much code as possible requiring manual review by a shrinking number of human volunteers, or to package every piece of software, or to rush new features, but these are what LLMs are used for.
In conclusion, allowing LLM contributions is contrary to the social contract and the common cause of creating a free operating system with a focus on quality and stability.
In the interest of not eroding Debian's reputation or further damaging the community, LLM-assisted contributions should be prohibited from inclusion in Debian.
Though our position is that LLM contributions are contrary to documents already ratified by Debian, in order to remove all doubt, we propose the following addition to the Social Contract:
Other projects exploring similar decisions have elicited a common reply: "How will you enforce a ban on LLM contributions?" While enforcement could be a challenge, this is a statement of intent by the Debian community, and we trust this community to adhere to it in good faith.
Citations are for background information only and do not reflect an endorsement of specific websites. Some ideas and wording were derived from the sources below.
GNOME discussion: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327 (CC0) Gentoo AI policy: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy Codeberg AI policy: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
This document was written by Matthias Geiger and Jesse Rhodes with input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language model assistance.
Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org：mailto:lucas@debian.org] [text of proposal：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00018.html] [text of amendment：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00048.html] [text of amendment：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00083.html]
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.
The Debian project recognizes that AI-assisted contributions raise many concerns, e.g. about the technical quality and maintainability of such contributions, and their legal status. AI itself also raises additional concerns, about its impact on society at large, on the IT industry and on Free Software; about its environmental impact; and the aggressive or non-compliant practices of AI scrapers.
Nevertheless, many Debian contributors find AI tools helpful when contributing to Debian, and ultimately for improving Debian.
Given both the benefits and risks of AI assistance, and the controversial discussions within the community, the Debian project finds it necessary to clarify its position on AI-assisted contributions and establish clear guidelines.
Ian Jackson [iwj@debian.org：mailto:iwj@debian.org] [text of proposal：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00118.html]
LLMs have many serious problems, including: undermining the mechanisms of free software community building; environmental damage; exploitation of authors; disruption to open web hosting by aggressive scraping; generation and promulgation of bullshit; polluting the information commons; hazards to users' mental health; economic bubbles; distortion of the computer hardware market; fraud; ownership by horrible people and companies; and so on. Ethical and safe use of this technology is almost impossible.
Ideally, LLM output should not form any part of software that we rely on, nor should LLM output ever take the place of human-written prose.
Unfortunately some of the wider software world, including many of our upstreams, take a different view. Therefore a complete ban on LLM output as part of Debian is currently impractical.
1. We request that all contributors to Debian avoid the use of LLMs in their Debian work.
2. We request that all decisionmakers within Debian discourage LLM use as much as practical. Practicality is a judgement call and we recognise that it will involve uncomfortable compromises.
3. We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from using this technology. In particular, the Free Software and Open Source communities should reject LLMs. We recognise that not everyone will heed this call.
4. Within Debian, messages to humans (including for example bug reports, mailing list messages, discussions on Salsa, and blog posts on Planet Debian) must be drafted solely by humans without LLM assistance.
5. Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed.
6. Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be respected.
7. Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of the Code of Conduct and should result in swift but proportionate disciplinary action.
8. Any contributor who feels they cannot write in English without assistance, may write in their native language, and expect readers to use translation tools of their choice. In that case a human-written English summary would be very welcome but is not required. In any case we promise not to shame anyone for any linguistic mistakes.
Pierre-Elliott Bécue [peb@debian.org：mailto:peb@debian.org] [text of proposal：https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00089.html]
Nevertheless, Debian acknowledges that these practices are already in use and here to stay. Rather than banning their use, which seems counter-productive and unenforceable, the project chooses to place responsibility on contributors and therefore defines the following guidelines.
Back to the Debian Project homepage：../../.
See our contact page：../../contact to get in touch. Web site source code is available：https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml.
扫码直达文章详情