Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changes to Sourcehut's terms of service regarding LLMs

sourcehut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

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

#31

Post by Zambyte »

mid-kid wrote: post #30
Zambyte wrote: 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.

To be against copyright is to not believe the idea of "adversarial copying". It doesn't matter if you like or dislike what other people do with their copies. The act of copying simply does not harm you.

The only way people can "abuse copyright against you" is if someone claims you violated their copyright, and invokes a DMCA takedown request, or sues you. You using the GPL will not protect you from this in any situation I can imagine. In fact, what Drew is doing here (claiming violation of copyright) is literally the only way to abuse copyright.

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

#32

Post by ahepp »

Nnnes wrote: post #8

Summary of the mailing list discussion ( https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CDKSTMKM0ZD9N.... ) - counted by hand without LLM assistance so there may be mistakes or misreadings :) ~51 in favor of the proposal. 20 of those specifically stated a desire for a blanket or as-strong-as-possible ban. 17 mentioned paying for the service. Many (sorry, didn't count these!) stated that the reason they joined SourceHu…

>mailing list discussion (https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CDKSTMKM0ZD9N....)

That is certainly one way to decide what to do with the data your customers paid you to store...

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

#35

Post by mid-kid »

Zambyte wrote: post #31
mid-kid wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be against copyright is to not believe the idea of "adversarial copying". It doesn't matter if you like or dislike what other people do with their copies. The act of copying simply does not harm you. The only way people can "abuse copyright against you" is if someone claims you violated their copyright, and invokes a DMCA takedown request, or sues you. You using the GPL will not protect you from this in any situat…

LLMs aid people in abusing copyright by stripping copyleft software of its freedoms and then making derivatives which the author then copyrights restrictively. It's simply not a level playing field when one party is allowed to restrictively copyright their work, it creates a competitive advantage. This is why copyleft exists, to prevent people enacting restrictive copyrights over their derivatives of copyleft works.

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

#37

Post by yyny »

enriquto wrote: post #26
lycopodiopsida wrote: post #19

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…

It just sucks having to pick between two extremes.

I moved to SourceHut from Github when their site stopped functioning without a JITed JavaScript engine or when you block certain AI elements. The bloat just got insane. Now it seems like I have to move again since SourceHut moved too far in the other extreme by embracing "minimalism" not only of their service but also of their users.

> you can [self-]host

I used GitHub and then SourceHut precisely so I don't have to do this.

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

#38

Post by ezst »

lycopodiopsida wrote: post #25
BowBun wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Eventually you'll realize that it's performance artistry all the way up and down. Don't you think that GitHub and its owners are engaged in high stakes lobbying and spending tens/hundreds of millions swinging politics their way (i.e. for their own profits, not yours)? Haven't you paid attention to the US presidential inauguration, who was attending it, and all the dealings before and after that?

If we can go as far as agreeing that this sucks, and that taking no stance only serves to reinforce the establishment of a technocratic authoritarianism, then paying attention to politics and who's at the losing end of what becomes a matter of survival.

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

#39

Post by Towaway69 »

irealis wrote: post #5

I've been a paying customer since... pretty much since I've first seen the project, which has been quite a few years. I've always known the srht founders as rather strongly opinionated - for better and worse. This has always bothered me a bit, but I still strongly preferred it to Github and the likes. And it didn't hit me either with the cryptocurrency related bans. Unfortunately this time, it does. And not because t…

> I wish there were reasonable alternatives.

CodeBerg ... oh sorry this isn't about GitHub being dead again /s

Well I guess the alternative, in this case, is GitHub or have they also changed their ToS/TaC?

I've stuck to GitHub while others have migrated away. I've been amused by the changes in ToS/TaC related to AI and now wondering whether I will just stick to GH.

And I don't even use AI generated code ... the irony of it all!

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

#40

Post by bugrasan »

lycopodiopsida wrote: post #4

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.

[dead]
Post reply on HN