61–70 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't edit anything. I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy.
So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo.
their comment still says "copy". the comment you are replying to clarifies that they meant to type "comply", not copy.
since the wrong word is still there, 'by definition' they have not edited it.
I'd suggest replacing that link with https://xcancel.com/mfts0/status/2070080422482977095
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans . Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to u…
> FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. That may be true, but I don't think it's obvious. What don't I know about the history of OSS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means they're not complying with the license terms. Which would be stealing. Like I said it would be.
Copyright violation is not theft. Your effort to create something that can be effortlessly copied conveys to you no property. Society deems it beneficial to grant a time limited monopoly on copying it to spur innovation.
Close your source if you don't want it to be read by LLM
That's not how licenses work, Papermark is AGPL
[flagged]
What a load of crock. FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans . Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to u…
In fact I seem to recall FOSS advocates denouncing licenses that put limits on who could use the software or for what purpose. This “it was always only for humans” take is new to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nearly word-for-word the content of the tweet. Right at the top. It isn't misleading unless you literally don't even bother to open the linked content. Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high. The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't thi…
It’s an intentionally misleading title, using “you” to imply that the reader is guilty of theft. An honest title would be “Corgi didn’t vibe code it, they stole Papermark’s AGPL code”. Sure, people should read links, but when a writer posts ragebait for engagement, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
I was mostly fighting the title character limit
Folks... read the actual tweet. They literally didn't vibe code it - they copy-pasted another project.
Naturally LLM technology has moved on since then. I don't remember any recent word for word reproductions of a copyright license.
There are a lot of people lauding the technology though because it occasionally one-shots a wildly impressive example of something which...already exists.
[flagged]
Or... Be nice and ask. People tell u what to do. Don't be rude here.
I remember this Video editor software which didn't comply properly with OSS licence of FFMPEG(?). And people told author what to do. It's always cheap to be kind. Or win dumb prizes.