16 ms·

This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That's of course great and awesome and super nice, but

This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That's of course great and awesome and super nice, but he's not been painstakingly and thanklessly maintaining some key linux component for the last 20 years or something like that. It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. That's nice! But it's not what most people who are deep into open source mean by the term.

beastman82 7mo ago
The assumption here is that the people who maintain something in a painstaking manner did not intend people to take it and do whatever they want with it in accordance with its license?
- sumeno 7mo ago
  "in accordance with its license" is the key part that's missing with LLMs. The licenses are completely ignored.
  - dartharva 7mo ago
    > The licenses are completely ignored. Where and when? In cases where LLM coding assistants reproduce copyleft code in someone's work assignment? The responsibility in those would be on the user, not on AI.
    - pseudalopex 7mo ago
      The user would know how?
    - sumeno 7mo ago
      Are you doing a full search of every GPL licensed repository every time you use an LLM to ensure that it isn't giving you GPL licensed code? That doesn't seem reasonable
      - dartharva 7mo ago
        Why not? Up until a year or two ago LLM pair programmers weren't even a thing.
      - bayindirh 7mo ago
        This is what GitHub promised years ago. Showing repositories where similar code is present so you can guess the license and use appropriate outputs. I’m not sure whether this is implemented or not since I don’t use generative AI for coding.
    - patagurbon 7mo ago
      In reproducing code that requires the license be reproduced alongside it.
  - nickff 7mo ago
    It seems to be a common view on HN that licenses and conditional access to websites should be ignored (i.e. WRT ad-blockers), but also that licenses on Open-Source Software repositories should be respected (i.e. WRT LLM training). I believe that holding these contradictory views is common, but the conflict would need to be resolved to come to a conclusion on how to proceed with LLM training.
    - pseudalopex 7mo ago
      There is no contradiction. Open source software licenses allow use without conditions. Ad blocker use does not distribute the modified web pages.
      - nickff 7mo ago
        I have not seen any evidence that LLMs ‘distribute’ modified software, though they do seem capable of replicating it.
        lavela 7mo ago
        I fail to see how mass scale reproduction of copyrighted code isn't a form of distribution.
        nickff 7mo ago
        Replication is not the same as reproduction; I can replicate an API without violating someone's license or copyright (which I would by reproducing their work).
        pseudalopex 7mo ago
        Reproduce is a definition of replicate. And LLMs reproduced code.
        pseudalopex 7mo ago
        The view LLMs should respect open source software licenses is not for replication alone. Models and generated code are derived from training data.
  - joquarky 7mo ago
    That's because licenses are an abstract complexity tacked on to a simple material reality in order "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". Just like many cultural rules, they keep growing in complexity until they reach a phase change where they become ignored because they have become too complicated.
    - wk_end 7mo ago
      OSS licenses haven't grown in complexity all that much in the past forty or so years. They're being ignored more now because it's become easier to ignore them, not because it's become harder to abide by them.
bigstrat2003 7mo ago
> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That is, in fact, OSS. Open source does not mean, and has never meant, ongoing development nor development with the community.
- layer8 7mo ago
  That’s just incorrect. “Open source” can mean the licensing as well as the development model [0]. It certainly has been associated with the development model since The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 7mo ago
    > “Open source” can mean Keyword being "can" The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself
    - layer8 7mo ago
      I’m saying that “open source” can mean both things. The parent was arguing that it only means the licensing. I’m not arguing that it always means the development model. > The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself By that logic, “open source licensing” would also imply a different concept than “open source” by itself. Note that the Wikipedia page for “open-source software” [2] states: “Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite”. That would really only be the case in the context of open-source development. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
mjr00 7mo ago
> It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. You're right and it's worth pointing out that a lot of open source has the opposite lifecycle: the authors make a thing, aren't sure how to sell it, so they open source it and hope to eventually sell something peripheral, i.e. "open core" with paid plugins or enterprise support. In these cases, open source isn't a gift so much as a marketing strategy. So it makes sense the maintainers wouldn't see LLM training on their code as a good thing; it was never a "gift", it was a loss leader.
- adiabatichottub 7mo ago
  There's been something lost over time about the philosophy of open source. It appeared at a time when it was becoming apparent that computers represented a new type of technology where you couldn't just "look under the hood". An independent mechanic or machinist could repair a car to spec. A carpenter didn't need original blueprints of the house to create an addition. You could disassemble a typewriter or a sewing machine and with some ordinary skill actually manage to figure out how it worked. With compiled software the bar to understanding by the owner or operator was raised significantly. Open source was about being able to actually work on the thing you owned. Edit: Note that the original term was Free Software, but there's a long history of politics about why the two are different.
  - sirtaj 7mo ago
    Indeed. Maybe it's just a function of passed time, but it feels like people surrounded by hustlers - including themselves - look at this and think "what's the hustle behind this?" because they can't imagine anyone doing this for any other reason. I get it, but it's quite sad.
    - applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
      It's a function of the economy going in the shitter, with food and housing prices tripling or quadrupling while wages go up 5 or 10%. People want to be paid for their work because they can't afford to pay rent giving gifts away, and hustling is the way to survive because there aren't enough jobs or even if they have a job it's not enough.
bloblaw 7mo ago
This sounds to me like the "No True Scotsman" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I break down what you said as: "Sure, he's released code with an open-source license, but that's not real open source in the sense that matters." I happen to disagree. OSS is OSS. AGPL is OSS. MIT is Open Source. Unlicense is OSS.
- daemonologist 7mo ago
  The point is not that it's not "real" open source, the point is that he has less interaction with the big part of the open source ecosystem which is feeling the brunt of the downsides of AI, namely, giant useless bug reports and PRs. (I do agree that it's still OSS even if you never maintain it or anything.)
  - bloblaw 7mo ago
    That framing makes more sense to me. I agree there's a difference between publishing code under an OSS license and actively maintaining a project while fielding the flood of low-quality AI issues and PRs. Someone in the latter category is obviously closer to that pain. I still wouldn't go so far as to dismiss Carmack's view on that basis alone, though. It just means his experience is less representative of maintainers dealing with that specific problem every day.
- GuB-42 7mo ago
  The thing is, he is not working in open source. He only released his software as open source when there was no more money to be made with it. The idea being that even if it is of no use for him, is could be of use to someone else. In a sense, it is crazy to think of such actions as generous when it is what everyone should have done, but since being an asshole is the rule, then breaking that rule is indeed generous. To me, working in open source means that your work goes to open source projects right now, not 10 years later when your software is obsolete and have been amortized. The difference matters because you are actually trying to make money here, and the protection offered by the licence you picked may be important to your business model. John Carmack is making gifts, which is nice, but he wasn't paid to make gifts, he was paid to write proprietary software, so he worked in proprietary software, not open source. On one occasion, he gave away one of his Ferraris, which is, again, nice, but that doesn't make him a car dealer.
dartharva 7mo ago
What do the people who are deep into open source mean by the term then, in your understanding?
stock_toaster 7mo ago
He also (presumably) doesn't have to worry as much about money as many OSS folks might, so dual licensing (as a means to keep working on the OSS version while also making ends meet) is likely not something he would consider. He also started an AI company, right?
- losvedir 7mo ago
  > He also started an AI company, right? Yes, but IIRC it's different than the current "download the internet" large language model approach. More like learning to play video games or something.
socalgal2 7mo ago
I have the same attitude as Carmack. I have several libraries and sites I maintain as well as contributing to several popular open source projects. I still have his attitude about this. Both my open source and my ongoing maintenance are gifts. I'm also free to stop giving when I don't feel like it.
- anon-3988 7mo ago
  There's more to open source than just the code or output, it is also the community. There's apparenticeship, sharing of knowledge, sense of comradery, supporting each other, etc. My day job uses a lot of open source libraries and projects, and do you know what we do when we fix things? We fork internally and don't upstream any patches. Do you not see a loss here? With LLMs, there's even LESS reason to keep up with upstream. We would probably just ask LLM to keep up with the changes commit by commit.
  - foobarian 7mo ago
    That's all great, but to me the primary point is rms' original grievance with that printer driver. If the source is open, anyone can improve it. Multiple anyones can improve it! They can even collaborate on message boards and make a nice community, but this is certainly not a requirement.
  - throwaway17_17 7mo ago
    I think your idealized list of attributes of “open source” is admirable. However, the apprenticeship, comradery, and support are a specific and often sought out feature of some development ‘communities’ for specific software. I’d also say that the ‘loss’ when fixes, updates, optimizations of open source software is not up-streamed is real, but this has very little to do with adopting or promoting the externalities (no matter how laudable) you want to see in certain software’s development. I personally don’t care about the community, its composition, or its internal structure for a lot of software I use. Even when I’m compiling from source and customizing smaller applications for personal efficiency, I’m not usually interested in being a part of some distributed community centered on that software. Some times I am engaged in the community and appreciate it and the work required to maintain that community. But in either case, the software is “open source”.
darth_avocado 7mo ago
OSS is a big umbrella. At the end of the day, if you are not hurting for money, you might be okay donating your work for AI training. Meanwhile if you’re working hard on projects while sacrificing a lot (including money) you are very much allowed to not want AI use it for training if it means financial gain for a select few at the top. It has the same undertones as how rich people talk about philanthropy. “Look I donated a portion of my wealth that barely affected my life, I must be better than all those poor people who never donate to chariTy”.
K0balt 7mo ago
That is, in fact, open source. The community is not the license. The “open source” development community is a user of that kind of licensing. You might better describe them as the open source maintainer community. I do see how ai impacts maintainers. But I’ve dumped hundreds of thousands of loc into the bucket with no hope that anyone would really maintain it. With AI it might become part of something useful. The license has many uses.
nayuki 7mo ago
Then by your definition, SQLite isn't open-source because it's a code dump with a license, but outsiders are not allowed to participate in shaping (the official copy of) the code.
- Quekid5 7mo ago
  SQLite is public domain while the code released by id/Carmack is GPL. The latter technically doesn't prevent anyone making money off it, but in practice it does (other than nominal fees). That alone is a massive difference.
- skeeter2020 7mo ago
  Not sure if this was your intent, but what WOULD the result be of an AI reimplemented SQLite? They've got some of the best technical documentation in the game; there are lots of directions this could go...
  - leokeba 7mo ago
    https://kiankyars.github.io/machine_learning/2026/02/12/sqlite.html https://kiankyars.github.io/machine_learning/2026/02/12/sqli...
    - agentultra 7mo ago
      https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct-code https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct... It can generate plausible code because the examples are already in the training set, the documentation, the how-to-write-a-database, other databases, etc. But unless you could write SQLite yourself it will be hard to specify a good one and to get the generator to produce a correct implementation.
SouthSeaDude 7mo ago
> It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. He didn't have to give it away, but he did, and for that I thank him
dismalaf 7mo ago
Open source is literally just releasing the code under an OSS license. Any additional meaning or steps isn't open source, it's something else...
westurner 7mo ago
Though I agree that a healthy, vibrant, open source software project requires community and merge maintainer(s), open source "code dumps" (contributions of one's work for others to share) are open source. There's no need to shame or diminish people into a different open source contribution pattern. We can be grateful for open source code dumps with no express or implied commitment to future performance. We aren't entitled to ongoing support or ongoing development.
- westurner 7mo ago
  Furthermore, there are different types of contributors. So often the people with divergent thinking and creative problem solving abilities aren't apt to stay focused on one thing for so long. It's normal for more operations-focused folks to handle the day-to-day on things designed by sometimes flighty, absent-minded, distracted, and unreliable chief engineers such as the aforementioned. Unless they want to stick with a project, you probably don't want to force those types to do the normal operations daily grind that's so normal to most people. "We'll take it from here" "Actually I can code, but on that one [...]"
kashyapc 7mo ago
Well said. Some people are misparsing your core point here. Skrebbel is largely referring to the OSS projects that need people to do consitent grunt work like shipping predictable releases, stable branch maintenance, backporting security fixes, etc. This is the kind of work maintains that the internet's infrastructure. A bit like the Nebraska guy from the famous XKCD, dependecy: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago
> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS It's a little disheartening that someone can release their code and still be told they "don't really do OSS".
- enraged_camel 7mo ago
  It’s a pretty nasty form of No True Scotsman. “I do open source. Oh, that guy? He doesn’t do real open source.”
- RunSet 7mo ago
  He *did* really do OSS. But he don't really do OSS. > id Tech 4 is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, and is to date the last id Tech engine to be open-sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_4 > At QuakeCon 2007, Carmack told LinuxGames that he would integrate as little proprietary software as possible into id Tech 5, as "eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we’re not going to integrate stuff that’s going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release." Carmack resigned from id in 2013, and no source code release followed the launch of id Tech 6 in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_5#Marketing_and_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_5#Marketing_and_licens...
serf 7mo ago
>This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps OSS wasn't always endless PRs and other git-specific related crap, and I think that line of logic is fucking ridiculous. Open source when I started was a website or BBS where a tarball of code was there waiting for me to download it. It wasn't PRs/issues/CI/career-finagling/virtue-seeking/etc; it was just the tarballl full of source code. I agree wholeheartedly with Carmack and I am glad to see people with that perspective. I think exactly the same with regards to all of the OSS projects and code that I put out for 20+ years before LLMs were a thing. nothing changes; i'd do it again. I didn't do it to make a career, I did it because I believe in the greater ethos of OSS.
- cholantesh 7mo ago
  >I didn't do it to make a career, I did it because I believe in the greater ethos of OSS. The greater ethos of OSS, as it is conceived of by most of its practitioners isn't "source availability is the same thing".
jasonwatkinspdx 7mo ago
I mean back in the day licensing Quake from iD was like that too. It was basically "hey, thanks for the $2 million, here's your cdr and never contact us again." It was night and day between them and Epic back then, which I think is entirely why Unreal Engine grew to be such a juggernaut, and iD tech stagnated.
- shdh 7mo ago
  Megatexture was also subpar and overcomplicated
briandw 7mo ago
This the “no true scott”! fallacy. I sure he writes code and makes it open with an open source license, but he not really doing open source.
bickfordb 7mo ago
Carmack was a shareware/proprietary software guy way before he was a open source person if ever.
shdh 7mo ago
Quake III Arena is OSS He doesn’t need to keep maintaining it

beastman82 7mo ago

The assumption here is that the people who maintain something in a painstaking manner did not intend people to take it and do whatever they want with it in accordance with its license?

sumeno 7mo ago
"in accordance with its license" is the key part that's missing with LLMs. The licenses are completely ignored.
- dartharva 7mo ago
  > The licenses are completely ignored. Where and when? In cases where LLM coding assistants reproduce copyleft code in someone's work assignment? The responsibility in those would be on the user, not on AI.
  - pseudalopex 7mo ago
    The user would know how?
  - sumeno 7mo ago
    Are you doing a full search of every GPL licensed repository every time you use an LLM to ensure that it isn't giving you GPL licensed code? That doesn't seem reasonable
    - dartharva 7mo ago
      Why not? Up until a year or two ago LLM pair programmers weren't even a thing.
    - bayindirh 7mo ago
      This is what GitHub promised years ago. Showing repositories where similar code is present so you can guess the license and use appropriate outputs. I’m not sure whether this is implemented or not since I don’t use generative AI for coding.
  - patagurbon 7mo ago
    In reproducing code that requires the license be reproduced alongside it.
- nickff 7mo ago
  It seems to be a common view on HN that licenses and conditional access to websites should be ignored (i.e. WRT ad-blockers), but also that licenses on Open-Source Software repositories should be respected (i.e. WRT LLM training). I believe that holding these contradictory views is common, but the conflict would need to be resolved to come to a conclusion on how to proceed with LLM training.
  - pseudalopex 7mo ago
    There is no contradiction. Open source software licenses allow use without conditions. Ad blocker use does not distribute the modified web pages.
    - nickff 7mo ago
      I have not seen any evidence that LLMs ‘distribute’ modified software, though they do seem capable of replicating it.
      - lavela 7mo ago
        I fail to see how mass scale reproduction of copyrighted code isn't a form of distribution.
        nickff 7mo ago
        Replication is not the same as reproduction; I can replicate an API without violating someone's license or copyright (which I would by reproducing their work).
        pseudalopex 7mo ago
        Reproduce is a definition of replicate. And LLMs reproduced code.
      - pseudalopex 7mo ago
        The view LLMs should respect open source software licenses is not for replication alone. Models and generated code are derived from training data.
- joquarky 7mo ago
  That's because licenses are an abstract complexity tacked on to a simple material reality in order "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". Just like many cultural rules, they keep growing in complexity until they reach a phase change where they become ignored because they have become too complicated.
  - wk_end 7mo ago
    OSS licenses haven't grown in complexity all that much in the past forty or so years. They're being ignored more now because it's become easier to ignore them, not because it's become harder to abide by them.

bigstrat2003 7mo ago

> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That is, in fact, OSS. Open source does not mean, and has never meant, ongoing development nor development with the community.

layer8 7mo ago
That’s just incorrect. “Open source” can mean the licensing as well as the development model [0]. It certainly has been associated with the development model since The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  > “Open source” can mean Keyword being "can" The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself
  - layer8 7mo ago
    I’m saying that “open source” can mean both things. The parent was arguing that it only means the licensing. I’m not arguing that it always means the development model. > The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself By that logic, “open source licensing” would also imply a different concept than “open source” by itself. Note that the Wikipedia page for “open-source software” [2] states: “Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite”. That would really only be the case in the context of open-source development. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

mjr00 7mo ago

> It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. You're right and it's worth pointing out that a lot of open source has the opposite lifecycle: the authors make a thing, aren't sure how to sell it, so they open source it and hope to eventually sell something peripheral, i.e. "open core" with paid plugins or enterprise support. In these cases, open source isn't a gift so much as a marketing strategy. So it makes sense the maintainers wouldn't see LLM training on their code as a good thing; it was never a "gift", it was a loss leader.

adiabatichottub 7mo ago
There's been something lost over time about the philosophy of open source. It appeared at a time when it was becoming apparent that computers represented a new type of technology where you couldn't just "look under the hood". An independent mechanic or machinist could repair a car to spec. A carpenter didn't need original blueprints of the house to create an addition. You could disassemble a typewriter or a sewing machine and with some ordinary skill actually manage to figure out how it worked. With compiled software the bar to understanding by the owner or operator was raised significantly. Open source was about being able to actually work on the thing you owned. Edit: Note that the original term was Free Software, but there's a long history of politics about why the two are different.
- sirtaj 7mo ago
  Indeed. Maybe it's just a function of passed time, but it feels like people surrounded by hustlers - including themselves - look at this and think "what's the hustle behind this?" because they can't imagine anyone doing this for any other reason. I get it, but it's quite sad.
  - applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
    It's a function of the economy going in the shitter, with food and housing prices tripling or quadrupling while wages go up 5 or 10%. People want to be paid for their work because they can't afford to pay rent giving gifts away, and hustling is the way to survive because there aren't enough jobs or even if they have a job it's not enough.

bloblaw 7mo ago

This sounds to me like the "No True Scotsman" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I break down what you said as: "Sure, he's released code with an open-source license, but that's not real open source in the sense that matters." I happen to disagree. OSS is OSS. AGPL is OSS. MIT is Open Source. Unlicense is OSS.

daemonologist 7mo ago
The point is not that it's not "real" open source, the point is that he has less interaction with the big part of the open source ecosystem which is feeling the brunt of the downsides of AI, namely, giant useless bug reports and PRs. (I do agree that it's still OSS even if you never maintain it or anything.)
- bloblaw 7mo ago
  That framing makes more sense to me. I agree there's a difference between publishing code under an OSS license and actively maintaining a project while fielding the flood of low-quality AI issues and PRs. Someone in the latter category is obviously closer to that pain. I still wouldn't go so far as to dismiss Carmack's view on that basis alone, though. It just means his experience is less representative of maintainers dealing with that specific problem every day.
GuB-42 7mo ago
The thing is, he is not working in open source. He only released his software as open source when there was no more money to be made with it. The idea being that even if it is of no use for him, is could be of use to someone else. In a sense, it is crazy to think of such actions as generous when it is what everyone should have done, but since being an asshole is the rule, then breaking that rule is indeed generous. To me, working in open source means that your work goes to open source projects right now, not 10 years later when your software is obsolete and have been amortized. The difference matters because you are actually trying to make money here, and the protection offered by the licence you picked may be important to your business model. John Carmack is making gifts, which is nice, but he wasn't paid to make gifts, he was paid to write proprietary software, so he worked in proprietary software, not open source. On one occasion, he gave away one of his Ferraris, which is, again, nice, but that doesn't make him a car dealer.

dartharva 7mo ago

What do the people who are deep into open source mean by the term then, in your understanding?

stock_toaster 7mo ago

He also (presumably) doesn't have to worry as much about money as many OSS folks might, so dual licensing (as a means to keep working on the OSS version while also making ends meet) is likely not something he would consider. He also started an AI company, right?

losvedir 7mo ago
> He also started an AI company, right? Yes, but IIRC it's different than the current "download the internet" large language model approach. More like learning to play video games or something.

socalgal2 7mo ago

I have the same attitude as Carmack. I have several libraries and sites I maintain as well as contributing to several popular open source projects. I still have his attitude about this. Both my open source and my ongoing maintenance are gifts. I'm also free to stop giving when I don't feel like it.

anon-3988 7mo ago
There's more to open source than just the code or output, it is also the community. There's apparenticeship, sharing of knowledge, sense of comradery, supporting each other, etc. My day job uses a lot of open source libraries and projects, and do you know what we do when we fix things? We fork internally and don't upstream any patches. Do you not see a loss here? With LLMs, there's even LESS reason to keep up with upstream. We would probably just ask LLM to keep up with the changes commit by commit.
- foobarian 7mo ago
  That's all great, but to me the primary point is rms' original grievance with that printer driver. If the source is open, anyone can improve it. Multiple anyones can improve it! They can even collaborate on message boards and make a nice community, but this is certainly not a requirement.
- throwaway17_17 7mo ago
  I think your idealized list of attributes of “open source” is admirable. However, the apprenticeship, comradery, and support are a specific and often sought out feature of some development ‘communities’ for specific software. I’d also say that the ‘loss’ when fixes, updates, optimizations of open source software is not up-streamed is real, but this has very little to do with adopting or promoting the externalities (no matter how laudable) you want to see in certain software’s development. I personally don’t care about the community, its composition, or its internal structure for a lot of software I use. Even when I’m compiling from source and customizing smaller applications for personal efficiency, I’m not usually interested in being a part of some distributed community centered on that software. Some times I am engaged in the community and appreciate it and the work required to maintain that community. But in either case, the software is “open source”.

darth_avocado 7mo ago

OSS is a big umbrella. At the end of the day, if you are not hurting for money, you might be okay donating your work for AI training. Meanwhile if you’re working hard on projects while sacrificing a lot (including money) you are very much allowed to not want AI use it for training if it means financial gain for a select few at the top. It has the same undertones as how rich people talk about philanthropy. “Look I donated a portion of my wealth that barely affected my life, I must be better than all those poor people who never donate to chariTy”.

K0balt 7mo ago

That is, in fact, open source. The community is not the license. The “open source” development community is a user of that kind of licensing. You might better describe them as the open source maintainer community. I do see how ai impacts maintainers. But I’ve dumped hundreds of thousands of loc into the bucket with no hope that anyone would really maintain it. With AI it might become part of something useful. The license has many uses.

nayuki 7mo ago

Then by your definition, SQLite isn't open-source because it's a code dump with a license, but outsiders are not allowed to participate in shaping (the official copy of) the code.

Quekid5 7mo ago
SQLite is public domain while the code released by id/Carmack is GPL. The latter technically doesn't prevent anyone making money off it, but in practice it does (other than nominal fees). That alone is a massive difference.
skeeter2020 7mo ago
Not sure if this was your intent, but what WOULD the result be of an AI reimplemented SQLite? They've got some of the best technical documentation in the game; there are lots of directions this could go...
- leokeba 7mo ago
  https://kiankyars.github.io/machine_learning/2026/02/12/sqlite.html https://kiankyars.github.io/machine_learning/2026/02/12/sqli...
  - agentultra 7mo ago
    https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct-code https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct... It can generate plausible code because the examples are already in the training set, the documentation, the how-to-write-a-database, other databases, etc. But unless you could write SQLite yourself it will be hard to specify a good one and to get the generator to produce a correct implementation.

SouthSeaDude 7mo ago

> It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. He didn't have to give it away, but he did, and for that I thank him

dismalaf 7mo ago

Open source is literally just releasing the code under an OSS license. Any additional meaning or steps isn't open source, it's something else...

westurner 7mo ago

Though I agree that a healthy, vibrant, open source software project requires community and merge maintainer(s), open source "code dumps" (contributions of one's work for others to share) are open source. There's no need to shame or diminish people into a different open source contribution pattern. We can be grateful for open source code dumps with no express or implied commitment to future performance. We aren't entitled to ongoing support or ongoing development.

westurner 7mo ago
Furthermore, there are different types of contributors. So often the people with divergent thinking and creative problem solving abilities aren't apt to stay focused on one thing for so long. It's normal for more operations-focused folks to handle the day-to-day on things designed by sometimes flighty, absent-minded, distracted, and unreliable chief engineers such as the aforementioned. Unless they want to stick with a project, you probably don't want to force those types to do the normal operations daily grind that's so normal to most people. "We'll take it from here" "Actually I can code, but on that one [...]"

kashyapc 7mo ago

Well said. Some people are misparsing your core point here. Skrebbel is largely referring to the OSS projects that need people to do consitent grunt work like shipping predictable releases, stable branch maintenance, backporting security fixes, etc. This is the kind of work maintains that the internet's infrastructure. A bit like the Nebraska guy from the famous XKCD, dependecy: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago

> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS It's a little disheartening that someone can release their code and still be told they "don't really do OSS".

enraged_camel 7mo ago
It’s a pretty nasty form of No True Scotsman. “I do open source. Oh, that guy? He doesn’t do real open source.”
RunSet 7mo ago
He *did* really do OSS. But he don't really do OSS. > id Tech 4 is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, and is to date the last id Tech engine to be open-sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_4 > At QuakeCon 2007, Carmack told LinuxGames that he would integrate as little proprietary software as possible into id Tech 5, as "eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we’re not going to integrate stuff that’s going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release." Carmack resigned from id in 2013, and no source code release followed the launch of id Tech 6 in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_5#Marketing_and_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_5#Marketing_and_licens...

serf 7mo ago

>This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps OSS wasn't always endless PRs and other git-specific related crap, and I think that line of logic is fucking ridiculous. Open source when I started was a website or BBS where a tarball of code was there waiting for me to download it. It wasn't PRs/issues/CI/career-finagling/virtue-seeking/etc; it was just the tarballl full of source code. I agree wholeheartedly with Carmack and I am glad to see people with that perspective. I think exactly the same with regards to all of the OSS projects and code that I put out for 20+ years before LLMs were a thing. nothing changes; i'd do it again. I didn't do it to make a career, I did it because I believe in the greater ethos of OSS.

cholantesh 7mo ago
>I didn't do it to make a career, I did it because I believe in the greater ethos of OSS. The greater ethos of OSS, as it is conceived of by most of its practitioners isn't "source availability is the same thing".

jasonwatkinspdx 7mo ago

I mean back in the day licensing Quake from iD was like that too. It was basically "hey, thanks for the $2 million, here's your cdr and never contact us again." It was night and day between them and Epic back then, which I think is entirely why Unreal Engine grew to be such a juggernaut, and iD tech stagnated.

shdh 7mo ago
Megatexture was also subpar and overcomplicated

briandw 7mo ago

This the “no true scott”! fallacy. I sure he writes code and makes it open with an open source license, but he not really doing open source.

bickfordb 7mo ago

Carmack was a shareware/proprietary software guy way before he was a open source person if ever.

shdh 7mo ago

Quake III Arena is OSS He doesn’t need to keep maintaining it