It's far-fetched that the GNU project is authentically concerned about software licensing?
Its much the same as someone creating a fork of GPL code in which they make additions that they put in the public domain. All the original code and the fork as a whole would remain GPL.
its not a small risk, its a negligible risk.
As you pointed out yourself, there's always the option to create a fork that does allow AI contributions, which may eventually force a re-assessment of the policy if the gap in utility grows too large.
That would take a very long time if contributions are reviewed etc. By then any legal ambiguities would be clear.
> a public domain codebase with some GPL code
which would still be a GPL codebase
> One way to do so is to outright ban contributions leveraging tools that are able to generate public domain code at superhuman speeds.
Can they generate code that would pass the quality standards, and pass the processes, of a project like this at superhuman speed? There is a separate requirement that contributors must be able to understand code and answer questions about it so a human would have to review code before even trying to contribute it.
> As you pointed out yourself, there's always the option to create a fork that does allow AI contributions, which may eventually force a re-assessment of the policy if the gap in utility grows too large.
1. if you are right that LLMs will do well enough to create a huge gap, then that is inevitable. 2. if you are wrong about that then it is unnecessary to try to stop it.
> which would still be a GPL codebase
If the GPL-licensed parts have become so insignificant that they can easily be replaced, it effectively no longer would be.