From even.rouault at spatialys.com Thu Oct 8 11:05:38 2026 From: even.rouault at spatialys.com (Even Rouault) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2026 20:05:38 +0200 Subject: [Board] Request for a moratorium on AI/LLM use within OSGeo Message-ID: <35a44e57-20b2-4d97-85a2-7358eef850d4@spatialys.com> Hi, (sent both to discuss, and CC'ed to board mailing list for information. Please keep the discussion only on -discuss) I don't think the current position of the foundation of not taking a firm stance on the matter of AI/LLM, and let each group decide, can be held anymore. It is becoming increasing clearer that penetration of AI within our community is toxic, and require each group to go through the painful process of defining its own position about the topic, which is very complicated and drains a lot of energy among community members. Recently TorchGeo (https://github.com/torchgeo/torchgeo/pull/4116) and QGIS (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/387) had to go for a full ban of AI/LLM use, both for coding and communication, given the difficulty to frame what exact use of that technology could be acceptable. I've also noticed in the incubation committee that nearly all recent submitted community projects have been largely vibe-coded, which seems incompatible to the criteria we expect of community projects, but the committee lacks clear guidance on how to proceed. Open source has always been about doing things differently from others, and I believe that on AI, we must resist to the trend of embracing a technology that has so many unknown consequences, and already very nocuous ones. This falls under the precautionary principle. A moratorium on AI/LLM use in all OSGeo venues (projects, committees, communication channels, conferences, etc.) seems to me to be to be the prudent approach. At least as a by-default policy. Each group could potentially reframe it, but by default, I believe groups should be protected. In some time, when the implications of using those techs will be better understood, and the landscape will have cleared up a bit, a potential relaxation can be discussed. Even -- http://www.spatialys.com My software is free, but my time generally not. LLMs contribute to global warming and brain rot. Let's guillotine them! "Ah ! ?a ira, ?a ira, ?a ira !" Initiator ofhttps://fuckaifoundation.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatianamdefreitas at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 05:34:55 2026 From: tatianamdefreitas at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Tatiana_Par=C3=A1?=) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:34:55 -0300 Subject: [Board] Request for OSGeo Support in Developing a Proposal for the IdeIA Terra Brasil Program - Building an OSGeo Proposal for the IdeIA Terra Brasil Program Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am writing as a member of OSGeo Brasil and an active participant in the Brazilian community to share an opportunity that I believe has significant potential to engage our community and partner companies in addressing a strategic challenge for my country. I have recently learned about initiatives under the IdeIA Terra Brasil Program, which include efforts to integrate territorial and environmental data, make extensive use of geospatial technologies, process large volumes of data, promote interoperability between systems, and develop a reference architecture for territorial data. These areas are closely aligned with the expertise of the OSGeo community and the broader open-source geospatial ecosystem. Among other objectives, the program envisions the integration of cadastral and territorial databases, the definition of authoritative reference data, and the use of tools for spatial analysis and large-scale information processing. I would like to propose that the OSGeo community support the development of a technical proposal based on open-source software, encompassing solutions for: - Integration and interoperability of territorial and environmental data; - Spatial data infrastructures based on open standards; - Web-based tools for data analysis, visualization, and sharing; - Geospatial databases for large-scale processing and analysis; - Scalable architectures for integrating multiple government databases and systems; - Data governance and the adoption of international interoperability standards. I believe this could be an excellent opportunity to further strengthen the connection between the OSGeo community and strategic government initiatives, engaging companies and professionals within our network with experience in technologies such as PostgreSQL/PostGIS, GeoServer, GeoNetwork, QGIS, OpenLayers, Kubernetes, data lakes, and spatial data architectures. One point I consider essential is that any proposal should be built on the principles of open-source software and open standards. Beyond delivering a technological solution, we need to ensure that, once the project ends, its maintenance, further development, and long-term sustainability can be managed by the technical teams of the participating ministries and institutions themselves. This would reduce technological dependencies and strengthen the government's technological autonomy. I also see potential for the components developed to be designed from the outset as a future *Digital Public Good (DPG)*, enabling their reuse by other public agencies, states, municipalities, and even other countries facing similar challenges in integrating territorial and environmental data. I would welcome feedback from colleagues on their interest in this initiative and would like to identify individuals, companies, and institutions within our community willing to contribute to the development of this proposal and the formation of an initial working group. Best regards, *Tatiana Par? Monteiro de Freitas* President, OSGeo Brasil Professor and Researcher in Geospatial Technologies and Territorial Governance Membra oficial *the Open Source Geospatial Foundation* ? OSGEO Curr?culo Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/8346985753324274 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From even.rouault at spatialys.com Wed Oct 14 05:27:22 2026 From: even.rouault at spatialys.com (Even Rouault) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:27:22 +0200 Subject: [Board] Request for a moratorium on AI/LLM use within OSGeo In-Reply-To: <35a44e57-20b2-4d97-85a2-7358eef850d4@spatialys.com> References: <35a44e57-20b2-4d97-85a2-7358eef850d4@spatialys.com> Message-ID: <23b2579d-4932-4f55-82f8-d5585dd40d2e@spatialys.com> Hi Board, no reaction ? Even Le 08/10/2026 ? 20:05, Even Rouault via Board a ?crit?: > Hi, > > (sent both to discuss, and CC'ed to board mailing list for > information. Please keep the discussion only on -discuss) > > I don't think the current position of the foundation of not taking a > firm stance on the matter of AI/LLM, and let each group decide, can be > held anymore. It is becoming increasing clearer that penetration of AI > within our community is toxic, and require each group to go through > the painful process of defining its own position about the topic, > which is very complicated and drains a lot of energy among community > members. Recently TorchGeo > (https://github.com/torchgeo/torchgeo/pull/4116) and QGIS > (https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/387) had to > go for a full ban of AI/LLM use, both for coding and communication, > given the difficulty to frame what exact use of that technology could > be acceptable. I've also noticed in the incubation committee that > nearly all recent submitted community projects have been largely > vibe-coded, which seems incompatible to the criteria we expect of > community projects, but the committee lacks clear guidance on how to > proceed. > > Open source has always been about doing things differently from > others, and I believe that on AI, we must resist to the trend of > embracing a technology that has so many unknown consequences, and > already very nocuous ones. This falls under the precautionary principle. > > A moratorium on AI/LLM use in all OSGeo venues (projects, committees, > communication channels, conferences, etc.) seems to me to be to be the > prudent approach. At least as a by-default policy. Each group could > potentially reframe it, but by default, I believe groups should be > protected. In some time, when the implications of using those techs > will be better understood, and the landscape will have cleared up a > bit, a potential relaxation can be discussed. > > Even > -- > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > LLMs contribute to global warming and brain rot. > Let's guillotine them! "Ah ! ?a ira, ?a ira, ?a ira !" > Initiator ofhttps://fuckaifoundation.org > > _______________________________________________ > Board mailing list > Board at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board -- http://www.spatialys.com My software is free, but my time generally not. LLMs contribute to global warming and brain rot. Let's guillotine them! "Ah ! ?a ira, ?a ira, ?a ira !" Initiator ofhttps://fuckaifoundation.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From luis.de.sousa at protonmail.ch Thu Oct 15 09:39:51 2026 From: luis.de.sousa at protonmail.ch (=?utf-8?Q?Lu=C3=AD=C2=ADs_Moreira_de_Sousa?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 16:39:51 +0000 Subject: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] Request for a moratorium on AI/LLM use within OSGeo In-Reply-To: <23b2579d-4932-4f55-82f8-d5585dd40d2e@spatialys.com> References: <35a44e57-20b2-4d97-85a2-7358eef850d4@spatialys.com> <23b2579d-4932-4f55-82f8-d5585dd40d2e@spatialys.com> Message-ID: Dear all, let me offer an additional perspective on this matter, also in light of what is being discussed in parallel in this list [0]. 1. Source code generated by a LLM is not protected by intellectual property laws and thus is not copyrightable. It follows, such code can't be licensed (at least in the OECD and possibly beyond). This aspect alone disqualifies any LLM-generated project (aka vibe-coded [1]) from the incubator. An OSI-approved licence is a requirement sine qua non for the incubator, and rightly so. 2. LLM-generated source code is being regarded by Judicial institutions as falling into "public domain". This has disparate implications in different jurisdictions. Whereas in the US or UK using such software may not pose great challenges, in continental Europe it exposes users to various liabilities. These will only be properly understood through jurisprudence. 3. OSGeo would be wise to stay away from vibe-coded projects posing for legitimate human creation (e.g. yielding copyright notice and licence). Such projects are pushing the boundaries of the Law, being easy targets for legal action, for instance in the scope of fair commercial competition. Direct commits by LLMs, impossible development times, ghost communities, the hallmarks of fake human creation are multiple and easy to spot. Welcoming such projects into the incubator might easily set OSGeo for legal complications, even in the cases in which the foundation does not assume copyright. 4. The inclusion of LLM-generated code in wider projects (e.g. a sub-module, a class, etc) may still allow for copyright and licencing, if *enough* human creation is involved. However, those modules still remain in "public domain" and there is at present no heuristic or guideline to determine whether a project includes enough human contribution to qualify for copyright. Whereas in abstract this management may well be left to PSCs, there is a catch: those projects whose copyright has been assigned to OSGeo itself. Therefore the Foundation should have a say in how LLM-generated contributions are managed in these cases. 5. There is also the CRA. Without tiring the reader too much, just to note the reasons disqualifying LLM-generated code for copyright, mostly likely disqualify it for distribution in the EU too. Jurisprudence to follow. Regarding points 1, 2 and 3 (and 5), I believe no new policy needs to be set in place. It is all a matter of abiding by the Law, and making sure newcomers do so too. Point 4 might well require an update to current policy, or perhaps a different posture by the Foundation regarding copyright assignment. This said, it is important to recognise this may all be a significant burden to an already burdened Board. Beyond this discussion folks like us opining in these lists should be able to reach concrete proposals or actions upon which the Board may promptly decide. Anyone interested in joining such effort? Regards. [0] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2026-October/040416.html [1] https://www.acm.org/media-center/2026/april/techbrief-vibe-coding -- Lu?s Moreira de Sousa Mastodon:?https://mastodon.social/@luis_de_sousa URL: https://ldesousa.codeberg.page Sent with Proton Mail secure email.