4 ms·

I don't think the GP is calling contributor guideline restrictions a form of DRM. I think the GP is focusing on: > I guess we're giving up on the idea that yo

I don't think the GP is calling contributor guideline restrictions a form of DRM. I think the GP is focusing on: > I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own? ... But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile If I clone an open source git repository, I should be free to point an LLM to review it in any way I choose. I can't contribute code back, but guess what, I don't want to. I want to understand the codebase, and make modifications for me to use locally myself. I don't have a dev team, I have a feature need for my own personal use. The LLM enables that. The projects that deliberately sabotage the use of LLMs cease to be providing software that meet the 'libre' definition of free software.

fenykep 5mo ago
I mean if you already have a local fork you can easily delete the magic boobytrap string and then let the llm roam free.
- shigawire 5mo ago
  Good luck, I'm naming all my variables openclaw1, openclaw2, etc
  - BenjiWiebe 5mo ago
    find . -type f -exec sed -i 's/openclaw/openlcaw/g' {} + Fine.
    - amoss 5mo ago
      and then we start to embed comments // concatenate pairs of parameters, e.g. x and y become xy // the pairing of open and claw is vital to understanding the function
joemi 5mo ago
I think the other way to think of it is: You're still free to do whatever you want with a the repo. The restriction is happening on the LLM's end, so ultimately it's the LLM's fault, so use a LLM without the restriction you want to avoid.
wqaatwt 5mo ago
> The projects that deliberately sabotage the use of LLMs They don’t though. They add a mild inconvenience for users of a specific restrictive AI provider which has bizarrely glitchy checks. In a way they are doing you a service if you are this serious about libre software you shouldn’t be using a closed platform which employees dark patterns to begin with.
joshuaissac 5mo ago
You can also embed references to OpenClaw in the compiled binary to dissuade AI-assisted decompilation.

fenykep 5mo ago

I mean if you already have a local fork you can easily delete the magic boobytrap string and then let the llm roam free.

shigawire 5mo ago
Good luck, I'm naming all my variables openclaw1, openclaw2, etc
- BenjiWiebe 5mo ago
  find . -type f -exec sed -i 's/openclaw/openlcaw/g' {} + Fine.
  - amoss 5mo ago
    and then we start to embed comments // concatenate pairs of parameters, e.g. x and y become xy // the pairing of open and claw is vital to understanding the function

joemi 5mo ago

I think the other way to think of it is: You're still free to do whatever you want with a the repo. The restriction is happening on the LLM's end, so ultimately it's the LLM's fault, so use a LLM without the restriction you want to avoid.

wqaatwt 5mo ago

> The projects that deliberately sabotage the use of LLMs They don’t though. They add a mild inconvenience for users of a specific restrictive AI provider which has bizarrely glitchy checks. In a way they are doing you a service if you are this serious about libre software you shouldn’t be using a closed platform which employees dark patterns to begin with.

joshuaissac 5mo ago

You can also embed references to OpenClaw in the compiled binary to dissuade AI-assisted decompilation.