Flathub, one of the most popular ways to grab applications on Linux, has a newly updated generative AI policy - where it's pretty much all banned. However, there is an exception noted for "mature, well-maintained projects" but it's not a guarantee.
A new commit was sent in and merged into the documentation, which is live now, that notes "Reword LLM policy to make it clear it's not allowed". The new policy reads:
Generative AI policy
This policy applies to both the application being submitted to Flathub and the Flathub submission itself, including the manifest, metadata, patches, build scripts, and pull request. For the purpose of this policy, applications include BaseApps, extensions, and any other artifacts that can be produced by flatpak-builder.
Submission pull requests must not be generated, opened, or automated using AI tools or agents. Please also do not request review from any AI tools in the submission PR. Automated Copilot reviews on GitHub can be disabled by the submitter by going here and changing
Repository accessto exclude the repo or disabling the global "Automatic Copilot code review" found here.Applications containing AI-generated or AI-assisted code, documentation, or other content are not allowed.
Applications or changes containing copyrighted, license-incompatible, or ethically questionable code are not allowed.
These submissions can be rejected without any further review.
Repeatedly violating these policies may result in a permanent ban from future submissions and activities.
Exceptions may be granted for mature, well-maintained projects.
To give some more context, developer Bart Piotrowski mentioned in a social media post on Mastodon:
We have updated Flathub's LLM policy to explicitly disallow AI usage for both the submission process and applications being submitted.
https://github.com/flathub-infra/documentation/commit/992f57b30de98ddbd5e80959e9672998c83c8c97
I've had some reservations about it, so the wording before that commit was relatively milder. I know it's an unpopular opinion on the Fediverse, but I do think LLMs are inevitable, and the reality is that you can expect less organically grown code as time goes on. I believe it can be a useful tool in and outside FOSS; I hoped we will see a larger number of apps where authors made some effort beyond prompting an agent. Meanwhile, the number of unpleasant interactions I've had with entitled submitters acting as if they were bestowing their brilliant software upon us idiots who are rejecting it went through the roof in the last month. I'm tired.
As always, we are not applying this retroactively, so any vibecoded apps which were already published will remain available.
What are your thoughts on this? No matter which side of the argument you're on, having clearly defined rules around it is a good thing so that it's clear for everyone.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
Quoting: CatKillerin my opinion, they mean: everything that was stolen from GPL or proprietary software shouldnt be used .Applications or changes containing copyrighted, license-incompatible, or ethically questionable code are not allowed.They're going to have to clean up the wording on this: all code is copyrighted.
permissive licences like mit, might be used.
spacemonkey 2 hours ago
This.
Last edited by tohur on 29 May 2026 at 5:11 pm UTC
Johnologue 1 hour ago
I know it's an unpopular opinion on the Fediverse, but I do think LLMs are inevitable, and the reality is that you can expect less organically grown code as time goes on. I believe it can be a useful tool in and outside FOSS; I hoped we will see a larger number of apps where authors made some effort beyond prompting an agent. Meanwhile, the number of unpleasant interactions I've had with entitled submitters acting as if they were bestowing their brilliant software upon us idiots who are rejecting it went through the roof in the last month. I'm tired.I think "LLMs are inevitable" is a terrible phrasing for a lot of reasons (it's like the "communism is great on paper, but..." thing - not about the stance, it's that people repeat this generic phrasing that doesn't actually make sense!), but I basically agree.
My current leaning is that it seems like LLM-based coding systems have a useful future. The problem is social/human. Corporations using it to gain power in extremely harmful ways...and individuals who have decided that simply using AI makes them superior to people with genuine skill/practice. They're more an extension of "AI artists" than they are "AI coders".
It is sensible and necessary to filter out AI submissions as a whole at this time.
I suppose this is also a good opportunity for Flatpak as a format. If an AI-based project distinguishes itself, people don't need to wait for Flathub to package/access it as a Flatpak, because they can be distributed outside of that centralized "app store". It raises a social barrier, but one that can be overcome.
Arthur Prazeres 1 hour ago
Quoting: tohurTo be honest all this is going to do is make people not be honest about using AI.. you people want transparency but the route your taking will only hide the fact people are using AI because 1000% bet you people can NOT tell human code from properly iterated and tested AI code, and now these coders because I again 1000% the people using AI properly are actual coders to be able to get the AI to produce code you won't be able to tell if its human or notyou have defensive ai tools for that, like pangram and winston
Patreon
PayPal
Anticheat check - which competitive games actually work on Linux?
How to give Valve feedback when Proton games have issues on Linux / SteamOS