EESF-2
March 25, 2026, 4:26pm
1
committed 12:23AM - 23 Mar 26 UTC
Modern gawk rejects C-style /* ... */ comments in AWK code, treating
them as reg… ex patterns where '*' has nothing to quantify. Replace all
such comments with AWK-style '#' comments in lantiq_bdi_conf.awk and
lantiq_ram_init_uart.awk.
Also replace the pattern 'if (x) /* comment */ else action' which used
a C comment as a null statement with the equivalent 'if (!x) action'.
Fixes build error:
awk: error: ? * + or {interval} not preceded by valid subpattern
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Link: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/22458
Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This is something worth paying attention to. Setting aside personal opinions, considering that OpenWrt’s code is licensed under GPLv2, the use of LLMs could very likely become a major issue.
This is an example:
opened 06:43PM - 05 Mar 26 UTC
Hiiiiii. I'm just a random user at a big company. I don't have legal advice, and… I don't even have moral advice. I have opinions (that do not represent those of my employer NVIDIA Corporation). Some of these are opinions on AI and copyrights, and I will try NOT to exercise them here, instead aiming for an AI-neutral, stance-on-AI-copyright-status-neutral perspective about using this software in practice.
My conclusion is:
Given the existence of issue https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327 **`chardet` v7.0.0 is absolutely toxic.**
By this I mean, if my employer's open source review legal people got wind of it, I seriously doubt that they'd approve v7.0.0 and up for any use under any circumstances whatsoever. With my personal forecast of that result, I'm not really interested in presenting it to them for analysis in the first place. (Maybe it could sneak by under their noses, unnoticed? I am not interested in sneaking it by them.)
And you may or may not be interested in the impact on me or my employer, or any big company, but I think my analysis will be typical of most actors who actually look at the problem. **There is risk here.** The risk is probably impossible to mitigate without getting sign-off from all contributors and Mark doesn't look willing to give it right now. The risk will probably be larger for large companies with lots of money; Mark could sue and `chardet` v7.0.0 of course provides no warranty (not even an implicit warranty that it is legal to use the code under the new license) so $EMPLOYER or $PROJECT could be on the hook. This risk is probably unacceptable for most companies, and may be unacceptable for many open-source projects.
**Therefore!**
I implore you, as a matter of your responsibilities as project maintainer ostensibly responsible for the maintenance of code for the benefit of your code's users: please do not foist this unnecessary controversy and risk upon your users.
To prevent disruption to the broader community of open source and commercial users alike that would arise if they had to blacklist `chardet` as a dangerous risk, I suggest an alternative approach.:
- Retract `chardet` v7.0.0 and do not use v7.x.x as tags going forward.
- If you deem it prudent, at your own risk, release `aichardet` or whatever you want to call it, as a fork, allowing users downstream to choose among classic `chardet` under the original license, `PyYoshi/cchardet` (existing MPL project), or the new AI-written edition, as their risk profiles dictate. (If you want to get fancy, you might also consider making `chardet` a shim that delegates to the various backend implementations in some clever way that lets users choose backends in projects that depend on `chardet` — I'm not a Python packaging engineer, I'm not sure how to best go about that in practice or if there's a good way to do it at all.)
The forums policy is clear, looks like you want to discuss code policy.
That is probably best directed to the mailing list if you want the right eyes on it.