71–80 of 323 posts
Unless you don't copy the license terms, it's impossible to "steal" open-source code. That's... sort of the point.
A cursory look reveals they aren't complying. So, as you say, they are stealing. What's the point of this comment?
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…
Ideally yes, but we know people don't RTFA - there's a reason that initialism dates back to early Slashdot. The paraphrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting to convert it to ragebait. Had the OP gone with something like "you didn't vibe code it, you plagiarized Papermark's open source project" (may need some editing to fit under the character limit) it would have at least been more true to the original tweet.
If you come to book club without reading the book, and you derail the conversation into something completely irrelevant, you're not getting invited back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You edited your comment while I was replying, and merely copying the license does not cover many other possible restrictions.
I didn't edit anything. I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy.
[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…
Not humans who are using AI tools?
[flagged]
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…
Developers gave their code out for free, but want to discriminate against people they don't like from using it in ways they dislike. The 'spirit of free software' is bullshit. It's software authoritarianism disguised as a noble cause.
Don't care. Competition is good for consumers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many open source licenses levy restrictions upon the acceptable use of the software. Those restrictions may include attribution requirements, up to and including a requirement to include the license when redistributing the code; they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes; they may require the downstream project to utilize the same license. Open source is not the same thing as "anybody can do anyth…
> they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes The most widely used definitions of “open source” do not allow such a prohibition.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
"This ain't what a C&D looks like. Implies you don't actually have a leg to stand on. Upload a copy of your official legal demand (from a lawyer) or I'll forever see your company as one who attempts to bully the competition in public"
-- https://xcancel.com/jacobhartmannx/status/207012600834729596...
Is this just trolling?!