Comment by ssl-3

9 hours ago

There's a Kroger grocery store near my house. It's very convenient -- I'm near it almost every day I'm alive. They have all kinds of things there, including factory-made bread and factory-made eggs.

There's also a tiny little Amish bakery that I know of. They make all kinds of things there, but the most interesting to me are the loaves of plain white bread that they bake every day (except Sunday) in their wood-fired oven. It is not near to me and is also off the beaten path a good bit, but I try to make a point to go there when I'm in the area. I usually just get a loaf of that plain white bread along with a dozen eggs from the chickens that they have roaming around outside eating bugs.

I wouldn't call any aspect of it artisanal or anything like that, but it's definitely not made by machines.

And for reasons I can't really rationalize or explain, I enjoy having things from the Amish bakery in my kitchen more than I do the superficially similar things that I get from Kroger.

And yet: I usually eat the factory stuff from Kroger. On a strictly functional basis it's about the same to me.

---

Anyway: Software. Did a bot write it? Did a person? Was it a combined effort? Does it even matter?

I can accept that folks might prefer to have software in their library that is written by people. My acceptance of this does not require them to rationalize their preference, or for me to agree with it or even understand it.

It's fine when someone cares about that kind of thing. And it's fine if they don't care, too.

We're allowed to like what we like. It's good to have options, and it's OK to prefer one way over another.

2 comments

ssl-3

Reply
davidodio  6 hours ago

> Does not specify if it's vibe coded or not, which I think should be normal practice now

I am trying to say that when people freely share software with the world, I do not think you are entitled to try to add conditions. People are free to share whatever they like, in the conditions they like - in this case the MIT license. Everybody else is free to take the code AS IS.

There is a difference between a commercial transaction and software which is shared without any expectations in return. With software shared without any expectations in return. I don’t believe that we should be trying to create normal practices on top of existing licences or trying to specify under what conditions somebody can share something

> It's fine when someone cares about that kind of thing. And it's fine if they don't care, too. > We're allowed to like what we like. It's good to have options, and it's OK to prefer one way over another.

I agree and never said anything different, but if somebody wants to share under different conditions, then their conditions will always trump yours