171–180 of 450 posts
Not sure when was the last time the author checked them out, GitLab had a bad UI, but they've some improvements done during the recent times. IMO they are pretty OK now (still not as good as GitHub, that is I don't even think GitHub has good UI).
But SourceHut is a nice pick anyway :)
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
Yeah on the one hand, isn't opening your source all about not really minding what happens to it after that? It's intended to be copied and used. On the other hand something about the term "laundering" kind of resonated for me. It's kind of like automated plagiarism where you spread your copying out over millions of people. But plagiarism only has meaning as an offense when the thing being copied isn't intended to be…
You can read licensed code, learn from it, and then write your own code derived from that learning, without having committed a copyright violation.
You can also read licensed code, directly copy paste it into your codebase, and still not have committed a copyright violation, as long as you did so in a way that constituted fair use (which copy-pasting snippets certainly would).
There’s no copyright issue here at all, and rationally speaking there aren’t any legitimate misuse of open source concerns either. If these people were honest they’d just admit to feeling threatened by AI, but nobody would care about that, so they just try to manufacture some fake moral panic.
> The code that was regurgitated by the model is marketed as "AI generated" and available for use for any project you want. Including proprietary ones. It's laundering open-source code. All of the decades of knowledge and uncountable hours of work is being, well, stolen. There is nothing being given back. Leaving GitHub wont change that, OpenAI is training its models on every bit of code they can have, sourcehut, cod…
This whole open source thing is the biggest farce on planet Earth. Someone with a good knowledge about geeks and their behaviour concocted up this open source bullshit. So now talented people give their skill to the "whole" and they have to beg for contributions and donations to get by. And other geeks (not suits with ties) finance the ones they sympathise with. It's ridiculous. And faceless entities use their hard w…
Q: What about the social features of GitHub? I enjoy the discovery and star features. There just isn't any community like it. Where can I get that? It would be great if there was something that had the discovery & social aspects but was agnostic to the actual site hosting the code. Does something like that exist?
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
You're allowed to make money from Free/OSS code, and plenty of companies have (Google, Amazon etc.), but they have always also at least given back something to the community to earn some good will. The situation with AI is new because it not only doesn't give anything back, it actually takes something away by threatening developers' jobs etc.
The busybox authors disagree: https://busybox.net/license.html
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
Exactly. People are getting mad that Microsoft is making good money while the people who made all that free software available mostly did it for free (like in no money and no recognition). It can sound unfair but that's the deal. If you didn't want people or AI to learn from your code, open source was not the right option.
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
You're right. It's a politeness law some people have invented.
It's also a value people have, but that's for themselves. I like contributing to OSS projects. But, as soon as it's imposed on others, and there are punishments for disobeying, it's a politeness law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well upthread the discussion changed to using a non-open license that prevents people from training AI on it. If you released software under such a license, someone re-uploading to Github would probably be violating their terms or yours. Regardless, Microsoft would probably remove the repo if you contacted them to let them know you're the copyright holder, and the software license is incompatible with their terms. It…
You shouldn't have to though, they have a responsibility all their own to check that they have the rights regarding someone else's copyright before they do what they want to do, rather than to do it anyway and then to wait for the rights holder to come to them. Copyright isn't 'opt in'.