4 ms·

If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.

candiddevmike 1y ago
Won't apply to closed source, not public code, which the GPL (QEMU uses) is quite good at ensuring becomes open source...
kgwxd 1y ago
Can't release someone else's proprietary source under a "do whatever the fuck you want" license and actually do whatever the fuck you want, without getting sued.
- deadbabe 1y ago
  It’d be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone
  - clipsy 1y ago
    It'd be like trying to squeeze blood from every single entity using the offending code, actually.
  - CursedSilicon 1y ago
    It's incredible watching someone who has no idea what they're talking about boast so confidently about what people "can" or "can't" do
- iechoz6H 1y ago
  You can do that but the fact you don't get sued is more luck than judgement.
- rzzzt 1y ago
  The license does exist so you can release your own software under it, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Only more reason for OSS to embrace AI generation - once it leaks into enough widely used or critical (think cURL) dependencies and exceeds certain critical mass, any judgement on the IP aspects other than "public domain" (in the broader sense) will become infeasible, as enforcing a different judgement would be like doing open heart surgery on the global economy.
  - windward 1y ago
    That's the situation we're already in with copyleft licences but legal teams still treat them like the plague.
behringer 1y ago
Open source is about sharing the source code. You generally need to force companies to share their source code derived from your project, or else companies will simply take it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it too.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Sharing is caring, being forced to share does not foster care. Companies don't care, so if you release something as open source that's relevant to them, "companies will simply take it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it too" - but that is what companies do, that is their very nature, and you knew that when you first opened the source. You also knew that when you picked a license, and it's a major reason for the particular choice you made. Want to force companies to share? Pick GPL. If you decide to yoke a dragon, and it instead snatches your shiny lure and flies away to its cave, you don't get to complain that the dragon isn't playing nice and doesn't want to become your beast of burden. If you picked MIT as your license, that's on you.

candiddevmike 1y ago

Won't apply to closed source, not public code, which the GPL (QEMU uses) is quite good at ensuring becomes open source...

kgwxd 1y ago

Can't release someone else's proprietary source under a "do whatever the fuck you want" license and actually do whatever the fuck you want, without getting sued.

deadbabe 1y ago
It’d be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone
- clipsy 1y ago
  It'd be like trying to squeeze blood from every single entity using the offending code, actually.
- CursedSilicon 1y ago
  It's incredible watching someone who has no idea what they're talking about boast so confidently about what people "can" or "can't" do
iechoz6H 1y ago
You can do that but the fact you don't get sued is more luck than judgement.
rzzzt 1y ago
The license does exist so you can release your own software under it, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
TeMPOraL 1y ago
Only more reason for OSS to embrace AI generation - once it leaks into enough widely used or critical (think cURL) dependencies and exceeds certain critical mass, any judgement on the IP aspects other than "public domain" (in the broader sense) will become infeasible, as enforcing a different judgement would be like doing open heart surgery on the global economy.
- windward 1y ago
  That's the situation we're already in with copyleft licences but legal teams still treat them like the plague.

behringer 1y ago

Open source is about sharing the source code. You generally need to force companies to share their source code derived from your project, or else companies will simply take it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it too.

TeMPOraL 1y ago
Sharing is caring, being forced to share does not foster care. Companies don't care, so if you release something as open source that's relevant to them, "companies will simply take it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it too" - but that is what companies do, that is their very nature, and you knew that when you first opened the source. You also knew that when you picked a license, and it's a major reason for the particular choice you made. Want to force companies to share? Pick GPL. If you decide to yoke a dragon, and it instead snatches your shiny lure and flies away to its cave, you don't get to complain that the dragon isn't playing nice and doesn't want to become your beast of burden. If you picked MIT as your license, that's on you.