3 ms·

>Why is it a bunch of mostly unpaid volunteer hackers are putting more effort into supply chain security than OpenAI. Unpaid volunteer hackers provide their wo

>Why is it a bunch of mostly unpaid volunteer hackers are putting more effort into supply chain security than OpenAI. Unpaid volunteer hackers provide their work for free under licenses designed for the purpose of allowing companies like OpenAI to use their work without paying or contributing in any form. OpenAI wants to make the most money. Why would they spend any time or money on something they can get for free?

ra 7mo ago
Not sure if you're fully over the context that openAI bought Astral - who "own" uv.
hootz 7mo ago
Yep. Permissive licenses, "open source", it's all just free work for the worst corporations you can think.
- philipallstar 7mo ago
  It's free work for anyone.
- tclancy 7mo ago
  Never let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. I suppose it works both ways here, but the specific end user is not why people make code available, it’s in the hope of improving things, even just the tiniest bit.
- MidnightRider39 7mo ago
  Seems like the most cynical take on OSS possible. Like anything good you do an evil person could benefit from - is the solution to never do any good?
  - fsflover 7mo ago
    The solution is to use AGPLv3.
    - MidnightRider39 7mo ago
      I’m maybe daft but AGPLv3 doesnt prevent $Evilcorp from using it, they just need to share any modifications or forks they made?
      - 3form 7mo ago
        Only if they provide the software or software as a service. Then I suspect it's good enough if the modifications or forks made are shared internally if software is used only internally, but on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.
        0x457 7mo ago
        > if software is used only internally Internal users are still users tho. They are entitled to see source code and license allows them to share it with the rest if of the world.
        fweimer 7mo ago
        Employers might argue that such internal use and distribution would fall under the “exclusively under your behalf” clause in the GPLv3, which is inherited by the AGPLv3.
        0x457 7mo ago
        Oh, I guess it would. Ignore me.
      - fsflover 7mo ago
        This is the point. They can use and modify it, but they also have to share their modifications, i.e., help its development. Yet most megacorps never even touch this license.
      - trollbridge 7mo ago
        And at this point, it appears running code through an LLM to translate it eliminates copyright (and thus the licence), so $Anycorp can use it. Our stuff is AGPL3 licenced and if this present trend continues we might just switch to MIT so at least the little guys can take advantage of it the way the big guys can.

ra 7mo ago

Not sure if you're fully over the context that openAI bought Astral - who "own" uv.

hootz 7mo ago

Yep. Permissive licenses, "open source", it's all just free work for the worst corporations you can think.

philipallstar 7mo ago
It's free work for anyone.
tclancy 7mo ago
Never let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. I suppose it works both ways here, but the specific end user is not why people make code available, it’s in the hope of improving things, even just the tiniest bit.
MidnightRider39 7mo ago
Seems like the most cynical take on OSS possible. Like anything good you do an evil person could benefit from - is the solution to never do any good?
- fsflover 7mo ago
  The solution is to use AGPLv3.
  - MidnightRider39 7mo ago
    I’m maybe daft but AGPLv3 doesnt prevent $Evilcorp from using it, they just need to share any modifications or forks they made?
    - 3form 7mo ago
      Only if they provide the software or software as a service. Then I suspect it's good enough if the modifications or forks made are shared internally if software is used only internally, but on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.
      - 0x457 7mo ago
        > if software is used only internally Internal users are still users tho. They are entitled to see source code and license allows them to share it with the rest if of the world.
        fweimer 7mo ago
        Employers might argue that such internal use and distribution would fall under the “exclusively under your behalf” clause in the GPLv3, which is inherited by the AGPLv3.
        0x457 7mo ago
        Oh, I guess it would. Ignore me.
    - fsflover 7mo ago
      This is the point. They can use and modify it, but they also have to share their modifications, i.e., help its development. Yet most megacorps never even touch this license.
    - trollbridge 7mo ago
      And at this point, it appears running code through an LLM to translate it eliminates copyright (and thus the licence), so $Anycorp can use it. Our stuff is AGPL3 licenced and if this present trend continues we might just switch to MIT so at least the little guys can take advantage of it the way the big guys can.