4 ms·

If he said/wrote "you can't use this with LLM" and it only deletes itself from the project, basically, I think that and only that is a valid point. But if the i

If he said/wrote "you can't use this with LLM" and it only deletes itself from the project, basically, I think that and only that is a valid point. But if the instruction was to download malware, or anything else that causes real damage, on purpose, this would be very different.

michaelmrose 4mo ago
You are misinterpreting what deleting itself as if the authoritial authority over the IP implies ownership but it's not so. It's executing unwanted code to delete files on the end users computer. It matters not a whit who owns the copyright.
- customguy 4mo ago
  Legally speaking, he already said, fuck this shit, sue me then. > "executing unwanted code to delete files on the end users computer" As the author put it: "It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves." Morally speaking, people who sling slop created from things taken without consent at humans who don't want slop can complain about a social contract they already cancelled unilaterally all they want.
  - michaelmrose 4mo ago
    Embedding instructions meant to run unintended operations isn't like telling a person an instruction because the intended effect is to run unauthorized operation on the computer not a person who can disregard them. The intent is further clarified by the effort to hide the instructions at the terminal. It could easily be a felony in addition to a lawsuit. Have fun spending 50k proving it's not.
  - michaelmrose 4mo ago
    Notably it's not clear that actual open source can even be open source whilst trying to control what local tools devs use to work with it. You certainly can't do that if your software depends on actual GPL or the like. You cannot nullify the social contract by quantifying what you imagine it ought to be and justifying any sort of misbehavior that you wish to engage in.

4 ms·

If he said/wrote "you can't use this with LLM" and it only deletes itself from the project, basically, I think that and only that is a valid point. But if the i

by customguy 4mo ago

michaelmrose 4mo ago
You are misinterpreting what deleting itself as if the authoritial authority over the IP implies ownership but it's not so. It's executing unwanted code to delete files on the end users computer. It matters not a whit who owns the copyright.
- customguy 4mo ago
  Legally speaking, he already said, fuck this shit, sue me then. > "executing unwanted code to delete files on the end users computer" As the author put it: "It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves." Morally speaking, people who sling slop created from things taken without consent at humans who don't want slop can complain about a social contract they already cancelled unilaterally all they want.
  - michaelmrose 4mo ago
    Embedding instructions meant to run unintended operations isn't like telling a person an instruction because the intended effect is to run unauthorized operation on the computer not a person who can disregard them. The intent is further clarified by the effort to hide the instructions at the terminal. It could easily be a felony in addition to a lawsuit. Have fun spending 50k proving it's not.
  - michaelmrose 4mo ago
    Notably it's not clear that actual open source can even be open source whilst trying to control what local tools devs use to work with it. You certainly can't do that if your software depends on actual GPL or the like. You cannot nullify the social contract by quantifying what you imagine it ought to be and justifying any sort of misbehavior that you wish to engage in.