Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by disclosure being a big part of open source?

I ask because it has not been my experience that OSS developers have ever had a habit of disclosing what tools they use. If you are lucky then a repo has instructions for contributors, that may describe tools being used, or CI configuration for running tests and linters, but most projects have neither. Mostly you just get instructions for building the project, but sometimes not even that

There's also https://noailist.org/, which is based on projects (not just OSS) committing to not using AI. That's probably also the only viable approach, if you want a list of projects without AI stuff, since projects can easily be using AI without it being visible to third parties inspecting the output of the projects

Having an public policy that permits the use of LLMs feels like the opposite of "hiding it". If a project has such a policy, then you can be pretty sure that LLMs are being used, even if you cannot tell exactly what commits involved the use of LLMs. It's probably also a lot more discoverable than disclosures in commits or PRs, which most users wouldn't know how to look for

Would you rather go on a date with a man wearing Meta glasses or go on a date with a bear wearing Meta glasses?

Thanks, fixed the typo, lol

Zellic did not write uutils/coreutils, they audited them. That is to say that they reviewed the existing source code and reported the issues they found.

Besides that, the first release of uutils/coreutils was back in April, 2020: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/releases/tag/0.0.1

I am not familiar with Zellic, but given the popularity of Rust in the crypto space, I am also not surprised that a company that audits Rust code has ties to crypto

Only the parts written by LLMs would be public domain. Everything else would still be copyrighted by Microsoft. See https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html

And since there's no easy way for outsiders to determine which part is what, it would be a minefield for anyone trying to use the leaked source code. ReactOS devs would have to stay far, far away to avoid giving MS an easy way to sink the project

They released 3.2.6 on the 10th per the blog post.

Which, given the size and complexity of GIMP, likely means that they were already in the process of wapping it up by the time OP made this post

I meant that OP was quoting themself. I'd be rather surprised if they have anything to do with the GIMP project

The problem of enums in other languages is that they do not make for a distinct type. They are just integers in a name. Or at least that is the case for C and Java enums. Python and JavaScript do not even have enums, which is even worse.

Strongly typed enums is hardly unique to Rust.

C++ has had them for a long time, for example: Using a plain integer type where an enum is expected has been prohibited since at least C++98. You can still use an enum in the place of an int, unless you use scoped enums (C++11 or later), which also require an explicit cast to convert from enum to the underlying type.

And Python has had some form of enum since since 3.4: https://docs.python.org/3/library/enum.html. It's not a language level feature, but that probably wouldn't make much of a difference, and it's as type safe as anything else in the language. But you will get a error when using type-hints, if you pass the wrong type to a function expecting an enum:

from enum import Enum

class MyEnum(Enum):
    A = 1
    B = 2

def foo(_: MyEnum): ...

foo(1)  # error: Argument 1 to "foo" has incompatible type "int"; expected "MyEnum"  [arg-type]

I think they are quoting themselves. I'm fairly sure they've posted this exact thing before, for other versions of GIMP

What is "Just. Wrong"? And what does the label "Linux boosted" have to do with this?