Why do people believe that giving a gift (releasing free software) obligates the recipients of those gifts?
This idea that open source code can be "stolen" is insane. You can't steal a gift. Once you give it away, it is no longer yours.
Saying Goodbye to GitHub
241–250 of 450 posts
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#242Has HN become an airport now that we are broadcasting departures? This article is interesting on a personal level if you know the author, but his reasons are not something most users care about and him moving on is not something I will think about at all
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a misrepresentation of the open-source landscape. Yes, there are people working on open-source projects who beg for donations; but there also are open-source projects maintained by full-time employees (Eleventy, paid by Netlify; React, paid by Facebook; Angular, paid by Google; Next.js, paid by Vercel; Linux, paid by various companies; etc.). If a person thinks that his efforts will be better compensated…
People should not beg for their work for a start. If you use it, you should pay for it. A small fee, or a fee that is set by the dev.
You just described proprietary software. It's a philosophy incompatible with free software.
You aren't required to pay for a gift, which is what free software is.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#244I'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'…
I would say that open source as a movement sprung up from the principles of early netiquette[0]. Which themselves were built on the foundations of sharing your knowledge with your peers. Whether you were trawling Usenet or just a presence in your local BBS scene, "teach it forward" was always a core concept. Still is. It's difficult to pay back to the person who taught you something valuable, so you can instead pay i…
I think the big move to formalization of GNU was that no free compilers for C existed. RS rightly saw this as a problem and did what he thought was needed to get a universal free c compiler.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#245I kept my github account to report issues on the projects still on github.
Even though github is own by the untrustable msft, it (still) does work with noscript/basic (x)html browsers (well I created my account probably a decade ago).
gitlab: I cannot even create an account.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair, but it is a negative take that disregards all emergent properties. If you strip all emergent properties from it, there is nothing left. The same thing is true of all biological systems. Why bother being "human". We are all just a bunch of cells exchanging chemicals and electrical signals. That's all there is to it. There is no reasoning, just a bunch of signals going back and forth.
How honestly can you say that "emergent properties" are real if you haven't really seen the training data or you don't actually know how the thing works?. It stand's to reason that the bigger the model, the more likely you'll get an answer to a question you're looking for. Even the apparently "tricky questions". Even things like translating code from one coding language to another... Anyway, maybe we are ALL stochast…
Emergent properties are never "real". They just are and you can see them happening, but "underneath" it's nothing.
Edit: I meant to say I don't need access to training. By experimenting with in/outputs you can get a basic picture. I don't need to see biological scans to say something about your personality either.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
But... we're all aware - as is GitHub - that plenty of the content there is not posted by the original copyright holders, who are the only parties that are able to enter into such a contract. That was the reason for GitHub coming into existence in the first place. You can't turn around a couple of years later and start arguing that the use of GitHub allows for a blanket exemption on copyright law, which is effectivel…
It shouldn't matter if the copyright holder agreed to it directly, if they've published the original code under an open source license. Since open source licenses all allow people to use the code for "whatever" Even GPL doesn't (yet) include a clause saying the code can't be used to train AI unless the AI itself is open source
> Since open source licenses all allow people to use the code for "whatever"
That's not what they allow for, and copyright being a 'right' it allows you to pass those rights on to others and to retain some for yourself. If not explicitly passed on the right still rests with the original author, plenty of precedent for that.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should not beg for their work for a start. If you use it, you should pay for it. A small fee, or a fee that is set by the dev.
You just described proprietary software. It's a philosophy incompatible with free software. You aren't required to pay for a gift, which is what free software is.
Nah, nope. You usually don't get the source for proprietary software. Just like you get medical care when you are in an accident, same should apply to work done on os software. Somehow devs should be compensated for their work on os soft.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#249Anyone who refuses to embrace these AI tools will simply not be able to compete. As new tools and tech appear in any trade you more or less have no choice but to embrace them.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#250Recently I noticed if you try to search a project’s “code” on Microsoft GitHub while unauthenticated, you’ll get `?` results and be prompted to log in to see anything.