hankman86

17 ms·

181.
by hankman86 5y ago
Regular people yes, but no problem for decently funded startups.
182.
by hankman86 5y ago
And in case of Copilot, the training data isn’t a moat anyhow. Last I looked, everyone could freely access GitHub public repositories.
183.
by hankman86 5y ago
I don’t think that your premise concerning “planetary-scale AI” (and the ability to pull it off) holds up. If Google and Microsoft are so dominant and had such an insurmountable head start, why are we seeing such an enormous number of AI s
184.
by hankman86 5y ago
I think one of the reasons for why the GPL as once more popular than other licenses has to do with the fact that it was created for the GNU operating system, basically a collection of simple command line utilities. No one would think of usi
185.
by hankman86 5y ago
That’s a fair argument to make, even though my counter point would be that first and foremost the (A)GPL excludes a community of developers who need to earn a living with their work. In fact, the FSF will call this “morally tainted”. That
186.
by hankman86 5y ago
You’re basically using the AGPL like a “freemium” upselling business model. I’ve got no issues with that, it’s your property after all. Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom. And be prepared
187.
by hankman86 5y ago
Actually there is. The LGPL is sort of a middle ground. It still requires you to share changes that you may make to some library. But it won’t easily infect the rest of your stack, so it’s basically the GPL with the viral bits removed.
188.
by hankman86 5y ago
Let’s face it: the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses. Projects using the GPL are increasingly held back and are losing favour among developers. Like LLVM is a very active and innovative platform, whereas GCC