2 ms·

TL;DR: I really wanted to use a more permissive license so I don't mind AI scraping my code. Fine for him, but it's totally reasonable for people to want to us

TL;DR: I really wanted to use a more permissive license so I don't mind AI scraping my code. Fine for him, but it's totally reasonable for people to want to use the GPL and not have it sneakily bypassed using AI.

throwaway2027 8mo ago
You hit the nail on the head. It's the same with employees who work for their employer but also want to reuse that code when they go work for other people and don't want to rewrite the exact same thing again. Even though everyone else can benefit from it too, Sean "nothings" Barrett said that's the primary reason for his STB libraries. https://github.com/nothings/stb https://github.com/nothings/stb
Findecanor 8mo ago
Indeed, many who released source code under the GPL in the past did so with the conviction that the license itself would in some measure protect the source code itself — as source code — from being exploited by commercially entities. The license was supposed to make derivative work feed back into improving the software itself, not to allow it to be used to create competing software. Many of those are disappointed with leading free software / open source advocates such as Stallman for not taking a stance against the AI companies' practice.
- galaxyLogic 8mo ago
  I don't think we should protect "source-code", we should protect people. Source-code doesn't care, people do. Should we protect developers and their rights? Surely, and users' rights too definitely. But protecting source-code as such seems a bit abstract to me.
yunnpp 8mo ago
This is exactly it. The people who release stuff under the GPL do so precisely because they want the software and derivatives to stay free. The software has strings attached; the AI removes them. What's so hard to understand here? Carmack's argument makes no sense, but I guess it has "Carmack" in it so obviously it must be on the front page of HN.
- wiseowise 8mo ago
  > but I guess it has "Carmack" in it so obviously it must be on the front page of HN Fanaticism is hell of a drug.

throwaway2027 8mo ago

You hit the nail on the head. It's the same with employees who work for their employer but also want to reuse that code when they go work for other people and don't want to rewrite the exact same thing again. Even though everyone else can benefit from it too, Sean "nothings" Barrett said that's the primary reason for his STB libraries. https://github.com/nothings/stb https://github.com/nothings/stb

Findecanor 8mo ago

Indeed, many who released source code under the GPL in the past did so with the conviction that the license itself would in some measure protect the source code itself — as source code — from being exploited by commercially entities. The license was supposed to make derivative work feed back into improving the software itself, not to allow it to be used to create competing software. Many of those are disappointed with leading free software / open source advocates such as Stallman for not taking a stance against the AI companies' practice.

galaxyLogic 8mo ago
I don't think we should protect "source-code", we should protect people. Source-code doesn't care, people do. Should we protect developers and their rights? Surely, and users' rights too definitely. But protecting source-code as such seems a bit abstract to me.

yunnpp 8mo ago

This is exactly it. The people who release stuff under the GPL do so precisely because they want the software and derivatives to stay free. The software has strings attached; the AI removes them. What's so hard to understand here? Carmack's argument makes no sense, but I guess it has "Carmack" in it so obviously it must be on the front page of HN.

wiseowise 8mo ago
> but I guess it has "Carmack" in it so obviously it must be on the front page of HN Fanaticism is hell of a drug.