The patch author, while claiming LLM discussions are (implied "hidden") in "internal mailing lists", didn't link to the "constructive and collaborative" conversation that indeed occurred (publicly). That seems a sort of dishonesty itself.
In a different thread about a different LLM-generated package, here's RMS himself:
> • As a disclaimer it was generated with LLM. I think ELPA has a
> • prudent policy to not allow this for now until there is legal
> • clarify, but does this apply to nonGNU-ELPA also?
RMS: It does apply, for the time being. It is not a final decision, it is tentative.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-06/msg00...
In a different thread about a different LLM-generated package, here's RMS himself:
> • As a disclaimer it was generated with LLM. I think ELPA has a > • prudent policy to not allow this for now until there is legal > • clarify, but does this apply to nonGNU-ELPA also?
RMS: It does apply, for the time being. It is not a final decision, it is tentative.
(link: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-05/msg00...)
GNU (and/or the Emacs project in particular) does not seem to be acting in ludditic or reactionary ways, but thoughtful ones.