[OSGeo-Discuss] Using AI in OSGeo projects - Notes from the Timisoara BoF
Seth G
sethg at geographika.co.uk
Sat Jul 25 01:01:27 PDT 2026
Hi all,
In terms of actions, adding an AI policy is a good start, and we now have several AI policies in place for OSGeo projects.
* GDAL [1]
* GeoServer [2]
* MapServer [3]
I presume requiring an AI policy will eventually become a requirement for projects graduating as OSGeo projects.
There are also several new "geo" projects emerging that are largely LLM-generated. One example is oxigeo [4]. As far as I am aware, this project has no plans to become an OSGeo project, but it seems only a matter of time before a similar LLM-generated project applies to become a Community or full OSGeo project.
I think OSGeo needs to make its position clear on whether these projects are welcome under the OSGeo banner. Using oxigeo as an example, it has approximately 2.3 million lines of code, one contributor [5], and no evident community.
As Adam wrote, OSGeo projects are about more than just the code. The current Incubation Committee page [6] states that a project must be:
* "Participatory"
* have an "Active Healthy Community"
* support user and developer collaboration
* demonstrate long-term viability
These criteria would appear to rule out such projects from becoming OSGeo projects, but it would be helpful to make this explicit.
Finally, graduating as an OSGeo project requires a "Provenance Review" to ensure that the project is genuinely open source and has the necessary rights to distribute its source code. This is difficult, if not impossible, to verify for projects that are predominantly LLM-generated. The same concern also applies to existing OSGeo projects that accept large pull requests which have been written primarily by LLMs. This could become a significant problem if issues similar to patent trolling or large-scale copyright claims emerge in the future.
As the OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI [7] notes:
> Most generative AI tools, however, are trained on copyrighted and licensed content, and their output can include content that infringes those copyrights and licenses.
Existing OSGeo projects have already undergone provenance reviews, and many also require contributors to sign contributor agreements before code is merged. It seems risky to begin disregarding this aspect of project governance and leave projects exposed to the possibility of having to remove code in the future.
Seth
[1] https://gdal.org/en/latest/community/ai_tool_policy.html
[2] https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-242
[3] https://github.com/MapServer/MapServer-documentation/blob/main/en/community/ai_tool_policy.txt
[4] https://github.com/cool-japan/oxigeo
[5] https://github.com/cool-japan/oxigeo/graphs/contributors?all=1
[6] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Incubation_Committee
[7] https://openjdk.org/legal/ai
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, at 8:43 PM, Jeroen Ticheler via Discuss wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks Adam, Nick and others that provided their input in this thread!
>
> There are many very valuable points. Indeed OSGeo is about much more than code! We should not allow the AI age to destroy our collective collaboration only because people have different opinions about its use/non-use.
>
> A good article was published by Codeberg on their stance on the use of AI, and the change to their Terms of Use. It is good input in this discussion and we recommend to read it:
>
> Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs <https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html>
> blog.codeberg.org <https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html>
> favicon.ico <https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html>
>
> This can be input for the discussions taking place at project level as well as at OSGeo level.
>
> It may influence where a project wants to host its source code repository to make sure that aligns with the project’s policies in relation to AI.
>
> An important consideration for projects is also to evaluate their current practices in their code automation processes (automatic testing, building et cetera). Some projects use lots of processing power that could be optimised to reduce their environmental impact. Most projects use git repo functionality for free because of their open source status, so this usage may go unnoticed.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeroen
>
>
>> On 23 Jul 2026, at 16:49, Nick Bearman via Discuss <discuss at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Adam for this contribution.
>>
>> As primarily a user (of mainly QGIS and R/sf/tmap) and trainer of those tools for others the technical details of this discussion and other discussions are often outside of my comfort zone.
>>
>> I would like to say that OSGeo is not just writing code - it is all of those things that you mention (support systems, do things with the code, funding, writing, sharing, using code and probably many more. And I would very much like it to continue like this.
>>
>> What I am not clear on is how AI impacts all of this. For me, this is the "I don't know".
>>
>> Clearly it is having big impacts on certain areas - thank you to everyone who has shared your experience. And please continue to share your experiences. I wasn't at the Timisoara BOF, but I hope to make it to the Hiroshima one.
>>
>> I might say it isn't having an impact on me - but I had a phone call from a student / potential student asking about QGIS training. And when I asked how he found my details, he said "I was looking on how to improve my CV and me more relevant through ai chat gpt to be specific and it brought up the qgis training link which I followed" (which is where my details are listed as a QGIS Trainer). So there is probably impact, positive and negative, all around us.
>>
>> A slightly more specific question is what role should OSGeo play in this. I think it makes sense for OSGeo to say "we don't have a policy on AI, it is up to individual projects to decide" - which is what has been said. OSGeo has provided areas for discussion (which is what is needed) and there could potentially be scope for guidance and advice as well moving forward.
>>
>> I don't feel as though I have managed to add much with this email - but I do appreciate (and second) the call that OSGeo is not just code. It is so much more than that.
>>
>> Best wishes to everyone with the future - let's keep talking, keep communicating and navigate whatever appears in the future.
>>
>> Happy GIS-ing!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Nick.
>>
>>
>> On 22/07/2026 11:46, Adam Steer via Discuss wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> The community seems really quiet on this topic, here and on discourse - aside from some key voices! While these are important and not to ignore, OSGeo is more than just a few euro-aligned guys (myself included). My first response about the arguments of Linus is this: is OSGeo really the community that wants to take the attitude "well, you can always fork it"? What's the relevance of this to OSGeo and its approach?
>>>
>>> Or, is it a dead cat? (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy)
>>>
>>> I've written in another discussion about community, environmental and social harms already caused by large scale expansion of the tools we collectively (and wrongly**) call "ai". And thought that this research might be good to add to the discussion:
>>>
>>> https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1
>>>
>>> The TL:DR is the title: "AI advice suppresses people’s willingness to say “I don’t know”, even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized"
>>>
>>> What has this to do with OSGeo? And writing code?
>>>
>>> Well, is OSGeo only writing code? Or is it also about all the support systems that enable writing code? Or *do things* with the code? Or *fund* the code? Or develop (and evolve) systems of governance for funding, writing, sharing, and using code? I've always had the view that OSGeo is all of the above. And in all of that system, being able to update our thinking, our approach - is critical. And we need to be comfortable with "I don't know".
>>>
>>> All of those words sum up to:
>>>
>>> I'm very uncomfortable with the approach "well, you can always fork it". I'm also uncomfortable with the particular fallacy of technological inevitability about "ai".
>>>
>>> So where do I think OSGeo projects should go with that?
>>>
>>> Where they choose to, understanding the risks carried - from plain wrong code to excessive maintainer workload to losing valuable community to valid criticism on environmental, social and psychological grounds. Or being told they're being left behind (by what?)
>>>
>>> I think Even makes a good point: are we here to do a technology at all costs? Or here to do a community that cares about how technology is made and deoplyed? or something else?
>>>
>>> Maybe all of this doesn't even resonate in a technology focused organisation. I really wanted to write on behalf of a (maybe imaginary) part of the community who sees OSGeo in a much broader context.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> **I do own a degree in psychology for what that is worth, I feel there's a little imprimatur there on making this kind of call
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> --
>> Nick Bearman
>> GIS Trainer & Consultant | nickbearman.com
>> +44 (0) 7717745715 | nick at nickbearman.com
>>
>> Normal working days: Mon - Thu
>> Next scheduled out of office: Thu 16th July
>>
>> Please let me know if I can make any adjustments related to disability or neurodivergence to improve how we interact.
>>
>> Due to my own life/work balance, you may get emails from me outside of normal working hours. Please do not feel any pressure to respond outside of your own working pattern.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> Jeroen
>
> *Jeroen Ticheler
*Director Phone
> (+31) 318416664 <tel:+31318416664>
> Mobile
> (+31) 681286572 <tel:+31681286572>
> Email
> jeroen.ticheler at geocat.com
> Website
> www.geocat.com
> Address
> GeoCat bv
> Generaal Foulkesweg 72
> 6703BW Wageningen
> The Netherlands <https://maps.google.com/?q=GeoCat+bv+Generaal+Foulkesweg+72+6703BW+Wageningen+The+Netherlands>
>
> linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ticheler/>
> bluesky <https://bsky.app/profile/ticheler.net>
> mastodon <https://mastodon.nl/@ticheler>
> instagram <https://www.instagram.com/geocat_bv/>
> banner <https://www.geocat.com>
> Supporter of
> badgecustom_ejY0i3yX6AvygQk9 <https://www.rodekruis.nl/wat-kun-jij-doen/samen-in-actie/bedrijven/vrienden-van-het-rode-kruis/>
> badgecustom_Dow6r7BByUl9iW8x <https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/>
> badgecustom_aAZoKyLnBPnuZ9XR <https://www.osgeo.org>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20260725/9db2bd3c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: favicon.ico
Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon
Size: 5430 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20260725/9db2bd3c/attachment.ico>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list