If your problem is that someone you don't like can benefit from your work, well, that was always the case. How many Russian drones run Linux?
Which is exactly what they do. LLMs don't respect licenses or attribution. So your assertion that the rise of AI assisted software doesn't affect free software is incorrect - it completely disregards and undermines it.
It also adversely affects the ability of people to exercise freedom over that software. LLMs serve as a proprietary middleman controlling the management, generation and distribution of code and humans are constantly being pushed out of the loop, having no direct access to that code, and being unable to learn from it or edit it without an LLM.
Yes you can still create and use free software but it becomes a problem when everyone is only ever training on your code and no human ever contributes anything back.
But seriously, that's what I mean, and what TFA talks about. A fork doesn't diminish your project at all. You're free to upload or not. Others are free to build on your project, and as long as they don't pretend it's theirs, they don't have to contribute anything from their fork to yours, or even keep it compatible.
LLMs don't copy code, they learn it, the same as you did. You'd better add a copyright notice to every file you write acknowledging the original authors you're paraphrasing, me hearty.
Sometimes people just want to make a little money on the side and not conquer the world. If a BSD open source project can help people sell a proprietary product, there's now a new stream of income in the community that could be partially reinvested in the project's core. GPL is excessively ideological and only makes sense for a narrow set of scenarios.
Please note that I'm not against GPL at all. Without it, I don't think we would have Linux and many other projects. What I'm against is promoting GPL to every scenario, which essentially kneecaps the community to protect against a hypothetical greedy large corporate entity.
GPL shouldn't be the default license when someone thinks of open sourcing their project. They should first consider MIT/BSD/etc and only pick GPL for reasons that are specific to that project or industry.
Maybe I read some of it wrong, but it was painful to get through with the constant telling me how bad things are before telling me what those things are. I truly despise this writing style. Set things up first, then discuss them, please. Then come to the conclusion of how bad it is with the reader.
> As soon as you leave this club and want to pull code from a GPL-licensed project into your MIT-licensed project, well, sorry, too bad for you.
So what? The GPL seems like a decently fair way of saying that "I'll make a contribution, as long as everyone else using it keeps making that same open contribution".
Personally, if I wanted to release open source code, I wouldn't want it to fall under an MIT license, because then some corp could simply take it and not make the same contribution back.
The author claims this "harms developers of non-GPL-licensed FOSS software" - give me a break. Does it break their legs? Give them the flu? It doesn't harm anyone. Maybe just inconveniences them. Cry me a river.
Note that busybox is under the GPL.
As someone involved with coreutils, I can’t say anything specific without examples, but speaking generally I would caution against putting too much weight into benchmarks.
ipaddr•45m ago
Have you ever seen legal terms in easy to understand form in any software, service or agreements?