4 ms·

I could never afford Tailwind UI but then again I don’t really use Tailwind. That said, as an open-source styling solution, they could be supported in other way

by port11 10mo ago

I could never afford Tailwind UI but then again I don’t really use Tailwind. That said, as an open-source styling solution, they could be supported in other ways. A lot — and I really mean a lot — of websites are built with Tailwind, yet very few consider donating or buying what they have to offer. Plenty of F/LOSS is in the same state: businesses extract all value they can from open-source, but put back nothing. That’s mining The Commons. LLMs are just accelerating this trend. It’s never gonna work in the long run. Let’s go back to writing everything in house then, since we’re 100x more productive and don’t have to pay a dime for other people’s work.

tazjin 10mo ago
My current take is that if you start an open-source project now, you should go full AGPL (or similar copyleft license), and require a CLA for contributors. If your thing ends up actually good you now have a defence against exploitation, and a way to generate income reliably (by selling the code under a different license). afaik, organisations like the FSF even endorse this.
- matt-p 10mo ago
  I agree, I'm quite curious on what feelings are about still putting it in a public GitHub repo? AI models will train on your codebase, unethical actors will still take it and not pay. Others can give the .zip to Claude and ask it to reimplement it in a way that isn't license infringement. I think it really turns open source upside down. Is this a risk worth taking or best to just make getting the source something that's a .zip on a website which the models realistically won't train on.
  - TeMPOraL 10mo ago
    Or maybe ask yourself why are you doing open source in the first place? AI training on your code is success if you care about your code being genuinely helpful to others. It's a problem only if you're trying to make money or personal reputation, and abusing open source as a vector for it.
    - grokys 10mo ago
      >Or maybe ask yourself why are you doing open source in the first place? I, like everyone started work on OSS because it's fun. The problem comes when your project gets popular - either you try to make it your job or you abandon the project, because at a certain point it becomes like an unpaid job with really demanding customers.
      - altmanaltman 10mo ago
        That makes sense but doesn't answer "why do open source" though. In fact, it only shows that there is little incentive to pursue a serious open-source project and just stick to hobby projects while ackowledging it'll never go anywhere. I struggle to answer that myself.
        grokys 10mo ago
        Lol, I never in a million years expected my project to get 100 users never mind the tens of thousands it now has. Sometimes others make the decision for you ;) it's still your baby though.
    - jcattle 10mo ago
      > abusing open source as a vector for it It seems like you are very against open source not being an altruistic endeavor. Or that you should not make money with an open source project. I would like to challenge you on that. Would you say that the Linux Foundation is a net positive on the software ecosystem? How about big open source projects like curl or QGIS? How about mattermost or nextcloud? All of these have full-time employees working on them (The Linux Foundation generated almost 300 million USD of gross revenue in 2024). I would argue that good monetization is paramount to a healthy open source ecosystem. Both can be true: - AI training on your code is success - AI undermining the sustainability of your project by reducing funding is an issue Also, I see you haven't changed your mind much on the training LLMs being one of the major benefits of open source since the last discussion we had ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44155746#44156782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44155746#44156782
- heavyset_go 10mo ago
  AGPL is my first choice of license, but its efficacy does not necessarily come from its teeth, but from the aversion legal departments have towards the license. It's similar to how the GPL used to be, or still is, treated. Along with compatibility with other AGPL projects, that's the reason I use the license. There are situations that the AGPL does not cover that could be considered leeching from the commons. I think we need stronger licensing, and binding contracts that forfeit code recipients' right to fair use in order to hinder LLM laundering, along with development platforms that leverage both to limit exploitation of the commons.
fc417fc802 10mo ago
> businesses extract all value they can from open-source, but put back nothing This has always been the case. Sometimes they give back by opening one or more of their components. Other times they don't. I don't see it as a problem. It doesn't usually detract from what's already published. In cases where it would detract, simply use an appropriate license to curb the behavior. > LLMs are just accelerating this trend. LLMs might not prove sufficiently capable to meaningfully impact this dynamic. Alternatively, if they achieve that level then I think they will accomplish the long stated goal of FOSS by enabling anyone to translate constraints from natural language into code. If I could simply list off behaviors of existing software and get a reliable reproduction I think that would largely obsolete worrying about software licenses. I realize we're nowhere near that point yet, and also that reality is more complex than I'm accounting for there. But my point is that I figure either LLMs disrupt the status quo and we see benefits from it or alternatively that business as usual continues with some shiny new tools.
- johnnyanmac 10mo ago
  >In cases where it would detract, simply use an appropriate license to curb the behavior. I think it's a bit too late for Tailwind to do that. >But my point is that I figure either LLMs disrupt the status quo and we see benefits from it Who's "we"? The only we here will be tech billionaires. We get shiny tools and no job. Is that a good trade-off?
duskdozer 10mo ago
>Plenty of F/LOSS is in the same state: businesses extract all value they can from open-source, but put back nothing. That’s mining The Commons. As incentivized by temporarily-free licenses.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

by port11 10mo ago

tazjin 10mo ago

My current take is that if you start an open-source project now, you should go full AGPL (or similar copyleft license), and require a CLA for contributors. If your thing ends up actually good you now have a defence against exploitation, and a way to generate income reliably (by selling the code under a different license). afaik, organisations like the FSF even endorse this.

matt-p 10mo ago
I agree, I'm quite curious on what feelings are about still putting it in a public GitHub repo? AI models will train on your codebase, unethical actors will still take it and not pay. Others can give the .zip to Claude and ask it to reimplement it in a way that isn't license infringement. I think it really turns open source upside down. Is this a risk worth taking or best to just make getting the source something that's a .zip on a website which the models realistically won't train on.
- TeMPOraL 10mo ago
  Or maybe ask yourself why are you doing open source in the first place? AI training on your code is success if you care about your code being genuinely helpful to others. It's a problem only if you're trying to make money or personal reputation, and abusing open source as a vector for it.
  - grokys 10mo ago
    >Or maybe ask yourself why are you doing open source in the first place? I, like everyone started work on OSS because it's fun. The problem comes when your project gets popular - either you try to make it your job or you abandon the project, because at a certain point it becomes like an unpaid job with really demanding customers.
    - altmanaltman 10mo ago
      That makes sense but doesn't answer "why do open source" though. In fact, it only shows that there is little incentive to pursue a serious open-source project and just stick to hobby projects while ackowledging it'll never go anywhere. I struggle to answer that myself.
      - grokys 10mo ago
        Lol, I never in a million years expected my project to get 100 users never mind the tens of thousands it now has. Sometimes others make the decision for you ;) it's still your baby though.
  - jcattle 10mo ago
    > abusing open source as a vector for it It seems like you are very against open source not being an altruistic endeavor. Or that you should not make money with an open source project. I would like to challenge you on that. Would you say that the Linux Foundation is a net positive on the software ecosystem? How about big open source projects like curl or QGIS? How about mattermost or nextcloud? All of these have full-time employees working on them (The Linux Foundation generated almost 300 million USD of gross revenue in 2024). I would argue that good monetization is paramount to a healthy open source ecosystem. Both can be true: - AI training on your code is success - AI undermining the sustainability of your project by reducing funding is an issue Also, I see you haven't changed your mind much on the training LLMs being one of the major benefits of open source since the last discussion we had ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44155746#44156782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44155746#44156782
heavyset_go 10mo ago
AGPL is my first choice of license, but its efficacy does not necessarily come from its teeth, but from the aversion legal departments have towards the license. It's similar to how the GPL used to be, or still is, treated. Along with compatibility with other AGPL projects, that's the reason I use the license. There are situations that the AGPL does not cover that could be considered leeching from the commons. I think we need stronger licensing, and binding contracts that forfeit code recipients' right to fair use in order to hinder LLM laundering, along with development platforms that leverage both to limit exploitation of the commons.

fc417fc802 10mo ago

> businesses extract all value they can from open-source, but put back nothing This has always been the case. Sometimes they give back by opening one or more of their components. Other times they don't. I don't see it as a problem. It doesn't usually detract from what's already published. In cases where it would detract, simply use an appropriate license to curb the behavior. > LLMs are just accelerating this trend. LLMs might not prove sufficiently capable to meaningfully impact this dynamic. Alternatively, if they achieve that level then I think they will accomplish the long stated goal of FOSS by enabling anyone to translate constraints from natural language into code. If I could simply list off behaviors of existing software and get a reliable reproduction I think that would largely obsolete worrying about software licenses. I realize we're nowhere near that point yet, and also that reality is more complex than I'm accounting for there. But my point is that I figure either LLMs disrupt the status quo and we see benefits from it or alternatively that business as usual continues with some shiny new tools.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago
>In cases where it would detract, simply use an appropriate license to curb the behavior. I think it's a bit too late for Tailwind to do that. >But my point is that I figure either LLMs disrupt the status quo and we see benefits from it Who's "we"? The only we here will be tech billionaires. We get shiny tools and no job. Is that a good trade-off?

duskdozer 10mo ago

>Plenty of F/LOSS is in the same state: businesses extract all value they can from open-source, but put back nothing. That’s mining The Commons. As incentivized by temporarily-free licenses.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]