4 ms·

What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing

by elric 4mo ago

What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to use their work. > Step out of the FOSS swamp, step in to human dignity. What is that even supposed to mean?

jazz9k 4mo ago
Developers gave their code out for free, but want to discriminate against people they don't like from using it in ways they dislike. The 'spirit of free software' is bullshit. It's software authoritarianism disguised as a noble cause.
- ludamad 4mo ago
  Even so, what's wrong with this? They told you up front that they're going to discriminate. Students can use the code freely, businesses may struggle. People don't need to be fair.
- xbar 4mo ago
  Don't use it.
JackFr 4mo ago
> FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. That may be true, but I don't think it's obvious. What don't I know about the history of OSS?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
brookst 4mo ago
I’m old and I don’t recall FOSS being about truly free, truly open, just not for some categories of use. In fact I seem to recall FOSS advocates denouncing licenses that put limits on who could use the software or for what purpose. This “it was always only for humans” take is new to me.
- elric 4mo ago
  Surely "only for humans" is the obvious default given that there were no AI megacorps when these licenses were written? Surely it's always been obvious that the person doing the sharing is the one to decide on the terms of the sharing? Maybe I want to share my cake with you but not with someone I don't like? How is that not my decision to make? I'm absolutely fine with people having different sharing philosophies. Different licenses with different nuances are a thing. But I don't like this take that everything that was shared is automatically retconned to be included in AI training data. That's not the spirit in which I shared my stuff. Maybe that's the spirit in which you shared yours, and I respect that.
MPSimmons 4mo ago
>written in the spirit of sharing with humans. Not humans who are using AI tools?
carlosjobim 4mo ago
Human dignity when it comes to work and contribution is very simple: Software developers should charge a fair price for their products from their users. That's dignified and beneficial for everybody involved. And it doesn't invite "code stealers" or anybody who wants to reap what they didn't sow. Just like any type of work. Fair compensation is the key. Not working for free for people who don't care about you and then complain that they didn't give you anything.
skeledrew 4mo ago
"Spirit" means nothing when it comes to legal - or even community - compliance. Either something is allowed, or it isn't, and if a license doesn't do everything that a user of said license desires then they should change that license. Just as licenses were made that explicitly made sharing with corporations less amenable, so should licenses re Gen AI usage. Only then is it worth making a case.

by elric 4mo ago

jazz9k 4mo ago

Developers gave their code out for free, but want to discriminate against people they don't like from using it in ways they dislike. The 'spirit of free software' is bullshit. It's software authoritarianism disguised as a noble cause.

ludamad 4mo ago
Even so, what's wrong with this? They told you up front that they're going to discriminate. Students can use the code freely, businesses may struggle. People don't need to be fair.
xbar 4mo ago
Don't use it.

JackFr 4mo ago

> FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. That may be true, but I don't think it's obvious. What don't I know about the history of OSS?

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

brookst 4mo ago

I’m old and I don’t recall FOSS being about truly free, truly open, just not for some categories of use. In fact I seem to recall FOSS advocates denouncing licenses that put limits on who could use the software or for what purpose. This “it was always only for humans” take is new to me.

elric 4mo ago
Surely "only for humans" is the obvious default given that there were no AI megacorps when these licenses were written? Surely it's always been obvious that the person doing the sharing is the one to decide on the terms of the sharing? Maybe I want to share my cake with you but not with someone I don't like? How is that not my decision to make? I'm absolutely fine with people having different sharing philosophies. Different licenses with different nuances are a thing. But I don't like this take that everything that was shared is automatically retconned to be included in AI training data. That's not the spirit in which I shared my stuff. Maybe that's the spirit in which you shared yours, and I respect that.

MPSimmons 4mo ago

>written in the spirit of sharing with humans. Not humans who are using AI tools?

carlosjobim 4mo ago

Human dignity when it comes to work and contribution is very simple: Software developers should charge a fair price for their products from their users. That's dignified and beneficial for everybody involved. And it doesn't invite "code stealers" or anybody who wants to reap what they didn't sow. Just like any type of work. Fair compensation is the key. Not working for free for people who don't care about you and then complain that they didn't give you anything.

skeledrew 4mo ago

"Spirit" means nothing when it comes to legal - or even community - compliance. Either something is allowed, or it isn't, and if a license doesn't do everything that a user of said license desires then they should change that license. Just as licenses were made that explicitly made sharing with corporations less amenable, so should licenses re Gen AI usage. Only then is it worth making a case.