In fact, it matches two of the “Permissive” criteria: generated code has been merged, and the policy defines conditions that allow such merges (approval by core). The list still recommends various software made by NetBSD developers as viable alternatives to slop projects, where appropriate.
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.
In fact, it matches two of the “Permissive” criteria: generated code has been merged, and the policy defines conditions that allow such merges (approval by core). The list still recommends various software made by NetBSD developers as viable alternatives to slop projects, where appropriate.
But how is requiring explicit approval (meaning it’s not something that is typically allowed) considered “permissive”?
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.