3 ms·

Do these types of things really matter anymore? If you have tokens, given the source is available pretty easy to reimplement with plausible deniability.

Joel_Mckay 20d ago
As much as I dislike isomorphic plagiarism, your point is very valid... It is a viable argument, and people shouldn't bury such insights given the estimated $9Tn worth of opensource work that was appropriated. =3
ChocolateGod 20d ago
I think there's been a mistake in the thinking that restricting the licensing on open source projects will make the companies that use them as a service would make them contribute. They don't, the companies just replace the software in question.
andxor 20d ago
It's a quixotic crusade, in perfect European style.
- janfoeh 20d ago
  Yes, how quixotic of them. They really should have foreseen this when they published the license … checks notes … close to twenty years ago.
KronisLV 20d ago
https://malus.sh/ https://malus.sh/ (I think it was intended to be satire/critique)
deleted 20d ago
[deleted]
lionkor 20d ago
If you think an LLM can just implement e.g. an alternative to the Linux kernel from scratch (or any other GPL licensed software), you might be falling for the marketing. Have you seen LLMs build large, stable, pieces of software, that work well, with your own eyes? I have not. I have seen LLMs build small, well-understood things, and I've seen LLMs do super well with extremely well specified problems, but all the rest seems to be marketing (i.e. I couldn't observe or reproduce it). Edit: I'm not talking about throwaway slop that just needs to run long enough to get funding.
- amazingamazing 20d ago
  Bun was rewritten for software used by millions.
  - meindnoch 20d ago
    Mechanical translation.
    - amazingamazing 20d ago
      It was done with LLMs.
- f311a 20d ago
  A lot of open source that we used to use as dependencies is trivial. Sometimes you only need 10% of the library. No one is talking about kernel. Also, changing license does not prevent you from forking the source code before the change. There are no new libraries with kernel level effort that use uncommon license.
sham1 20d ago
Then again, it's not like even before the plagiarising slop machines you couldn't just get around licenses if you were dedicated enough to evil and was comfortable lying about the provenance of the code you're using. Sure, it'd make all the lawyer types nervous for obvious reasons, but that's why you'd also need to be comfortable with the evil deed. But you're correct that the evil plagiarism machine makes it way easier.

Joel_Mckay 20d ago

As much as I dislike isomorphic plagiarism, your point is very valid... It is a viable argument, and people shouldn't bury such insights given the estimated $9Tn worth of opensource work that was appropriated. =3

ChocolateGod 20d ago

I think there's been a mistake in the thinking that restricting the licensing on open source projects will make the companies that use them as a service would make them contribute. They don't, the companies just replace the software in question.

andxor 20d ago

It's a quixotic crusade, in perfect European style.

janfoeh 20d ago
Yes, how quixotic of them. They really should have foreseen this when they published the license … checks notes … close to twenty years ago.

KronisLV 20d ago

https://malus.sh/ https://malus.sh/ (I think it was intended to be satire/critique)

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]

lionkor 20d ago

If you think an LLM can just implement e.g. an alternative to the Linux kernel from scratch (or any other GPL licensed software), you might be falling for the marketing. Have you seen LLMs build large, stable, pieces of software, that work well, with your own eyes? I have not. I have seen LLMs build small, well-understood things, and I've seen LLMs do super well with extremely well specified problems, but all the rest seems to be marketing (i.e. I couldn't observe or reproduce it). Edit: I'm not talking about throwaway slop that just needs to run long enough to get funding.

amazingamazing 20d ago
Bun was rewritten for software used by millions.
- meindnoch 20d ago
  Mechanical translation.
  - amazingamazing 20d ago
    It was done with LLMs.
f311a 20d ago
A lot of open source that we used to use as dependencies is trivial. Sometimes you only need 10% of the library. No one is talking about kernel. Also, changing license does not prevent you from forking the source code before the change. There are no new libraries with kernel level effort that use uncommon license.

sham1 20d ago

Then again, it's not like even before the plagiarising slop machines you couldn't just get around licenses if you were dedicated enough to evil and was comfortable lying about the provenance of the code you're using. Sure, it'd make all the lawyer types nervous for obvious reasons, but that's why you'd also need to be comfortable with the evil deed. But you're correct that the evil plagiarism machine makes it way easier.