Live data from Hacker News

Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

sourcehut.org

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#21

I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying. This policy is a) dumb b) unenforceable. I pay them for infrastructure and service, not for some pseudo-moral ideas about how I should write my code. My code is as little of their concern, as things happening in my own house.

> I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying.

Great, they said they will give you plenty of time and support to do so. I respect their decision, not everyone is allowed to do everything on every platform. By choosing a Github, you invariably support a whole set of other things through their owners. It's not a bad thing to be forced to consider the long term impacts of your choices. If this was a bad decision, the market will say so.

But I mean, I never used Sourcehub. With this stance, I respect them even more, so maybe I'll start paying. Guess that cancels you out!

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#22
post #21

I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying. This policy is a) dumb b) unenforceable. I pay them for infrastructure and service, not for some pseudo-moral ideas about how I should write my code. My code is as little of their concern, as things happening in my own house.

> I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying. Great, they said they will give you plenty of time and support to do so. I respect their decision, not everyone is allowed to do everything on every platform. By choosing a Github, you invariably support a whole set of other things through their owners. It's not a bad thing to be forced to consider the long term impacts of your choices. If this was a bad…

Good luck. Just be prepared to deal with other “great” ideas down the line, because when I subscribed such bullsh*t was not in terms. Fortunately, my renewal was due on 28.08 (I am not making it up) so I was able to cancel. I pay for services, not performance artistry.

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#23
post #11

Drew convinced me that we should abolish copyright through his blog[1][2]. I find it very unfortunate that he uses the copyright licenses of the software hosted on SourHut as an argument against LLMs. Abolishing copyright means abolishing copyright for everyone, even you. Even if you don't like what people do with their copies. I also find the reference to the energy consumption of AI dated a year and a half ago to b…

The efficiency gains only make us use less resources if demand is fixed rather than elastic. Look up Jevons's paradox.

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#24
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying. Great, they said they will give you plenty of time and support to do so. I respect their decision, not everyone is allowed to do everything on every platform. By choosing a Github, you invariably support a whole set of other things through their owners. It's not a bad thing to be forced to consider the long term impacts of your choices. If this was a bad…

Good luck. Just be prepared to deal with other “great” ideas down the line, because when I subscribed such bullsh*t was not in terms. Fortunately, my renewal was due on 28.08 (I am not making it up) so I was able to cancel. I pay for services, not performance artistry.

If you think that with Drew, you only paid for services, you have been willfully ignoring his advocacy since the inception of Sourcehut

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#25
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck. Just be prepared to deal with other “great” ideas down the line, because when I subscribed such bullsh*t was not in terms. Fortunately, my renewal was due on 28.08 (I am not making it up) so I was able to cancel. I pay for services, not performance artistry.

If you think that with Drew, you only paid for services, you have been willfully ignoring his advocacy since the inception of Sourcehut

As I already said: not interested in radicals and/or personalities — they are doomed to fail. I only pay for services provided. Sourcehut was a minimalistic service fitting to my minimalistic personal needs. Not anymore. Good riddance, sourcehut!

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#26
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are literally paying them to be concerned about your code.

Nah - all my repos are private, they mostly contain my configs and I am not paying money to read these insanities about tools I use. As much as I like paying to escape a capitalistic monstrosity such as github, they still seem to be more … mentally stable, for the lack of a better term. At least you are not at a whim of some BDFL or an aggressive minority of radicals. It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshitt…

> It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only (...)

Maybe this is a question of point of view? I find github's stance on slop extremely radical (and totally contrary to my own values). At the same time, github is obviously enshittified, so I don's see the point in using it anymore.

You still have gitlab, which is some kind of middle ground. And if you only need to store private config files, you can host a private instance of forgejo--or a bare git repo--for much less than a sourcehut subscription. I hope you find your place! (still, I'm curious why your config files are AI slop, but that is another subject)

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#27
Sigh, frustrating for me but I guess I understand the rationale, if not the implementation.

I'm retired from programming professionally and I liked using Sourcehut for my personal projects because it just got out of my way, and I could put my mostly-old open source projects up there without worrying about people trying to contribute to them thanks to the friction of the system. I do slop-code hobby projects because I'm pretty much done with programming for fun now, but they're always private and I know that my relative load is low as I don't do much different from how I would personally use it.

Personally I'm in favour of blocking LLM pull requests/merge requests/patches to open source repos - the sheer volume of crap is out of this world. I saw a repo with 1.1k unmerged PRs yesterday! The code can be from an LLM but the request to merge it damn well better be written by a human. I'm not going to put effort into reviewing something someone else couldn't be bothered to even write a blurb for.

But for private projects, just shove a rate limiter on the endpoints and be done with it.

Lately I'm very conflicted about software development as a whole. I've always aspired to be good, both in my work and in my relationship with others in the industry. But I can't be arsed any more - the joy has gone out of software, and I just want it to be done and out of my way. And now I have to move my photography portfolio repo that has fewer commits per day than I could write by hand, because there can't be grey areas or compromise on the modern internet.

I used to work for GitLab, for what it's worth (and they've gone quite far down the AI toilet), and I honestly don't think I can be arsed setting up that or anything else. I might as well just shove bare repos on my NAS and go do something I actually enjoy.

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah - all my repos are private, they mostly contain my configs and I am not paying money to read these insanities about tools I use. As much as I like paying to escape a capitalistic monstrosity such as github, they still seem to be more … mentally stable, for the lack of a better term. At least you are not at a whim of some BDFL or an aggressive minority of radicals. It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshitt…

> It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only (...) Maybe this is a question of point of view? I find github's stance on slop extremely radical (and totally contrary to my own values). At the same time, github is obviously enshittified, so I don's see the point in using it anymore. You still have gitlab, which is some kind of middle ground. And if you only need to store private c…

For a simple reason - I may one-shoot an emacs function (or several) I need for my config with claude. So, it is technically slope. I am also against self-hosting - I don’t have time and patience for it. IT is not a valuable hobby for me anymore, with LLM or without.

I guess, back to github :)

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#29
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a nitpuck to me: reading the comment I replied to, I assumed I needed to cancel my Sourcehut subscription. In fact, I don't. That's a lot of information to've left out of so many pull quotes.

Your worry was that if you used AI for things other than generating code/tickets/communication/assets, that you couldn't use sourceforge?

Correct. This is specifically what covered my uses of the service:

> to review your work, to ask questions of, to perform security analysis

Re: Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

#30
post #11

Drew convinced me that we should abolish copyright through his blog[1][2]. I find it very unfortunate that he uses the copyright licenses of the software hosted on SourHut as an argument against LLMs. Abolishing copyright means abolishing copyright for everyone, even you. Even if you don't like what people do with their copies. I also find the reference to the energy consumption of AI dated a year and a half ago to b…

As long as copyright exists, we need copyleft licenses to ensure that covered software can't be copyrighted.

That is to say, being against copyright doesn't mean you want to allow others to abuse it against you.

Post reply on HN