Comment by LtWorf
10 hours ago
I'm not a scab, so I won't use permissive licenses on my unpaid projects. People who want to use them at work can cry me a river.
10 hours ago
I'm not a scab, so I won't use permissive licenses on my unpaid projects. People who want to use them at work can cry me a river.
Same. Started to adopt AGPLv3 for every new project. With AI sucking up all the CV-driven contributors, it’s time to take back open source as a joyful hobby for nerds that enjoy programming and sharing their creations with one another, instead of being corpo stans that do free support for shareholder driven enterprises.
Do you think AGPL is going to stop a crawler from incorporating your work into their training set? I don’t. There are zero meaningful consequences atm.
That being said, I’m with you in spirit and in action, but realistically it’s pointless outside of living in accordance with your values.
Edit: Re-reading that, i just told you that your principles are pointless, and thats fucked up and wrong. I’m going to live in accordance with mine and not delete this, but apologies.
I don’t really care that the things I make will invariably be scooped up and ingested into the training data.
It’s rather that I think we all ought to stop making software that is primarily useful to businesses, because there is no more joy in that with AI-written PRs driving maintainers into burnout. Big tech finally has no more excuses as to why they don’t maintain all the bedrock libraries themselves. So I say, let them do that.
And on the other hand, since anyone can vibe code something now, the value of GitHub projects as CV material has gone down significantly, so I’d expect less people to do that. Good! Open Source as a community, as a movement, doesn’t need these people.
Let’s get back to the roots.
That's kinda how I'm thinking about this in terms of licenzing my upcoming projects.
The code is just going to be laundered anyways, so why bother putting on a license like AGPL that might just hinder adoption?
2 replies →
> Do you think AGPL is going to stop a crawler from incorporating your work into their training set?
No, but i propose we ostracize anyone who uses LLMs for the wrong reasons (i.e. not accessibility), and i hope you do too. The reasons are mostly not related to licenses, though, but it upholds licensing as a nice-to-have consequence.
(loved your comment edit)
1 reply →
What a thread.
Maybe there is hope for the internet?
I don't bother so much with licenses, but learned to reply with "that would be 1k bucks" instead of "you are welcome" where someone wants my library to do something it didn't before.