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

The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 287 posts

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#271

Post by fangspire »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #269
fangspire wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals eat each other. Often in ways more "horrible" than what we do to them (in quotes because nothing in nature is horrible. Horror is a human notion). Animals are not moral agents, and eating them is not different from eating plants. Both are part of the biosphere that we manage to our benefit.

Animals don't have a choice about eating each other. We do. And there are plenty of people who would vehemently argue that eating their pet puppy is very, very, very, different from eating a plant.

[dead]

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#273

Post by newbie001 »

paaloeye wrote: post #65

First Claude installed 10GB VM [0] without asking, but OpenAI ships LibreOffice. What's next? Somebody ship their monorepo verbatim? Honestly, not sure it's worth having those app on your localhost at all. I ended up uninstalling all frontier labs bloated apps and start using Google AI Mode + Antigravity CLI / Claude Code sometimes. [0] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/22543

I already have a copy of LibreOffice on my mac. It weights around 3GB. That extra copy is not appreciated

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#274

Post by satvikpendem »

germandiago wrote: post #261
satvikpendem wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the problem of GPL. I'd rather have high quality software with patches shared back and always being able to see the code than some popular software that eventually is used in some corporate environment without the ability see what they changed. Regardless, who cares about "adoption?" That's not the original point of open source which was that if you're working on something and you wanted to share it, you…

> and you wanted to share it, you could, without any expectation of usage, merely that it might help just one extra person out there Related: how do you think you can attract more people, by setting a restrictive copyleft that some people will use in their spare time or by attracting even corporations with money that will end up committing to a repo that is used in half of the world? Note that I am talking about adop…

Why would I care about attracting more people? Not every piece of software needs a hundred contributors. As long as it works for me and maybe someone else gets use out of it, that's all that's needed in the eyes of the original spirit of the licenses. Stallman just wanted to fix his printer, not continuously work on that code for ten years.

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#275

Post by satvikpendem »

kennywinker wrote: post #169
satvikpendem wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what the right thing to do is? Everyone has different opinions.

Mostly individuals decide what they will do, and then communities decide if they respect that or not. Doesn't exactly apply to companies tho, since they're functionally sociopaths.

Yes, each individual has individual notions on what the right thing to do is, is my point. There is no objective reality to it.

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#276

Post by dustypotato »

what wrote: post #138
devy wrote: post #118

Now someone please use ChatGPT/Codex or Claude Code to rewrite the entire LibreOffice source into a single Rust binary already! Just like Jarred Sumner did for Bun [1] or Carmine Paolino did for Fastpotify [2] - granted there are some rough edges for sure, but the slim diet trimmed down and performance gains were wrothy. [1] https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust [2] https://fastpotify.rocks/

> rewrite the entire LibreOffice source into a single Rust binary already! Why?

Java

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#277

Post by BizarroLand »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #269
fangspire wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals eat each other. Often in ways more "horrible" than what we do to them (in quotes because nothing in nature is horrible. Horror is a human notion). Animals are not moral agents, and eating them is not different from eating plants. Both are part of the biosphere that we manage to our benefit.

Animals don't have a choice about eating each other. We do. And there are plenty of people who would vehemently argue that eating their pet puppy is very, very, very, different from eating a plant.

I'm native, and my ancestors were called "dog soldiers" because we would bring dogs with us to war, and when rations got a little tight we would throw fido into the pot. Eating dog is generally considered abominable when you love them as pets but it's a common thing in many societies and not wrong.

I will say though, I would only ever consider eating a dog in a life or death situation.

If there was no absolute need for me to eat a dog then I would not do it, and even if there were it would be a difficult moral dilemma for me that should I survive could possibly haunt me for life, but for my ancestors it was a common occurrence.

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#278

Post by rdbl27 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #157
rdbl27 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. In this case, they chose -- explicitly -- to NOT require any payment or contribution from anyone. Your feelings about what constitutes "the right thing to do" are apparently different from those of the authors. You believe you know better than they themselves do how they should be trea…

They clearly would like donations, but choose not to require any payments. Your line of reasoning seems to be along the lines of "anything not forbidden is compulsory" which is not a good place. Having the choice to donate but not being required to is good. And yes, I think that if OpenAI is choosing to include an entire copy of LibreOffice in their product, it is definitely the right thing to do to sling them a dona…

"It's the right thing to do" in reply to a moral query is the "begging the question fallacy".

The question at hand is of the form: Is it right to do X (to donate, in this case)? Your reply amounts to: yes, because X is the right thing to do. This merely restates the query as its own conclusion.

"Donations" are - by definition - entirely voluntary.

If people want to donate, that's fine. If they don't want to donate -- also fine. That's what "donation" means.

Therefore anyone's decision not to donate is entirely consistent with the author's own expressed preferences.

Whether an actor happens to be large and rich (OpenAI) is irrelevant. The license -- the author's formally expressed preferences -- does not say anything about "free unless you are rich." They could certainly have done so if they had wanted to. They didn't. You are taking it upon yourself to claim that you know what's best for them.

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#279

Post by rdbl27 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #152
rdbl27 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. In this case, they chose -- explicitly -- to NOT require any payment or contribution from anyone. Your feelings about what constitutes "the right thing to do" are apparently different from those of the authors. You believe you know better than they themselves do how they should be trea…

> Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. It does! And they wish to get donations. There's a button right at the top on the site making that clear. > In this case, they chose -- explicitly -- to NOT require any payment or contribution from anyone. Yes, so what? It is true that they wished to not require payment. That is one…

So.... Since they explicitly chose not to require any payment, there is no moral obligation to pay them. That's the point.

Would it be nice? Sure. But "not donating" is also fine.

"Donations" are, by definition, entirely voluntary. Whether someone using the software under its proper licensing terms is wealthy, whether you approve of their business model, or other factors are all irrelevant.

Re: The ChatGPT/Codex app bundles a full copy of LibreOffice

#280

Post by rdbl27 »

sampullman wrote: post #153
rdbl27 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe you know better than the authors themselves about how they ought to be treated? They chose -- explicitly, voluntarily, knowingly -- to give the thing away for free. That's their right for their own creation. Your preferences don't supersede theirs.

You've emphasized this point more than once, but I don't think it's a good counterargument to the GP. It is equally valid to say that they have explicitly (voluntarily, knowlingly) chosen to accept donations for their work. By profiting off their work and not supporting them you are making your own choice. It says nothing about the authors' preference.

They chose a license that is _explicitly designed_ to allow people to profit from their work without paying.

There are many other licensing terms in common use. They chose that one.

That's fine, they can do what they like with their work. There is no moral obligation to reinterpret their motives in a fashion that differs from their formally expressed preferences.

They chose to accept donations -- also fine. If you want to donate, go ahead. If you don't -- that's fine too, by definition.

Post reply on HN