John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists • Hacker News Board

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#221

Post by jraph » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

elteto wrote: post #154

jraph wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit That's not true. There are business models around open source, and many companies making money from open source work. (I'm only reacting to this specific part of your comment)

I think you are splitting hairs. Yes those models “exist”, if by exist you mean they have dual-licensing setups with different tiers (community, professional, etc). The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference.

I'm not splitting hairs, it's a crucial aspect and a common misconception that it would be quite helpful to get rid of (hence my reaction). And no, it's not necessarily dual licensing (why not though) or different tiers, or fauxpensource or whatever, there are many projects which are completely open source. See for instance Nextcloud, XWiki, PostgreSQL, Linux...

Again, as I said, I was only reacting to that specific part of your comment, because it is obviously wrong.

(and thus the rest can't follow since you use it to draw a conclusion -- which doesn't mean you can't fix this, I don't know, actually I didn't get your point and I don't see how it counters what you replied to -- but I'm not really concerned about this part)

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#222

Post by ThrowawayTestr » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #188

arjie wrote: post #108

Has anyone else noticed a cultural shift around monetization of output? I think there wasn't as much back when I first started using open-source programs, both as a user, and a small-time contributor for decades now. And I've noticed this on other things too. A short while ago, someone on Reddit pointed out that something on Google Maps was wrong and so I went and submitted a fix and told them how to and I received a…

> I received a barrage of comments about working for free for a corporation that's making money off me The problem is that the big tech companies aren't holding up their end of the traditional social contract. I like to think of the wider open source community as one giant group project. Everyone contributes what they can, and in turn they can benefit from the work everyone else has done. The work you do goes towards…

The amount of value Google Maps has given me is far beyond what I'd be willing to pay in actual dollars.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#223

Post by crote » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

imiric wrote: post #82

Thinking of open source as a gift is such a strange take. It implies that the relationship is merely a transaction where the giftee is the beneficiary and the gifter is a philanthropist. It has subtle financial undertones, and a sense that gifters are somehow morally superior. It is far healthier to see it as a collaboration. The author publishes the software with freedoms that allow anyone to not only use the softwa…

The gift metaphor might work if you think of it like birthday gifts: yes, it's a gift, but everyone knows that you're supposed to give one in return on their birthday.

If you accept gifts on your birthday but never give any in return, you're quickly left with a vanishingly small number of friends.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#224

Post by SllX » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #206

technothrasher wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be conflating copyright with access rights. Two very different things. Regardless of your feelings on either, there is no contradiction in holding different views on them.

Copyright is all about gating access, as media rights holders for sports well know.

Well no, it’s about legally gating the ability to copy so the original author doesn’t have to compete in the same market to sell his own book with every other bloke with a printing press and a copy of the book. Everything else is an addendum.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#225

Post by ThrowawayTestr » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

OSaMaBiNLoGiN wrote: post #4

I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. In his follow-up post he talks about him open sourcing old games as a gift, and he doesn't much care how people receive that gift, just that they do. He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. The original authors…

I haven't given a cent to openai or anthropic but they have given me many thousands of tokens for free.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#226

Post by Aurornis » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #162

Aurornis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Open source” can mean Keyword being "can" The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself

I’m saying that “open source” can mean both things. The parent was arguing that it only means the licensing. I’m not arguing that it always means the development model. > The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself By that logic, “open source licensing” would also imply a different concept than “open sour…

> By that logic, “open source licensing” would also imply a different concept than “open source” by itself.

It does

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#227

Post by indemnity » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

CrossVR wrote: post #49

There's one elephant in the room that's not being addressed: Training an AI on GPL code and then having it generate equivalent code that is released under a closed source license seems like a good way to destroy the copy-left FOSS ecosystem.

This is 100% already happening. No need to worry about licensing or dependencies any more, just have the LLM launder it into a plausibly different structure!

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#228

Post by jjj123 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

“My million+ open source LOC were always intended as a gift to the world”

That’s great for John, but not everyone’s open source projects are meant as a gift to the world for anyone and everyone to use. That he cannot understand that others think differently than him is disappointing.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#229

Post by lavela » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #205

pseudalopex wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no contradiction. Open source software licenses allow use without conditions. Ad blocker use does not distribute the modified web pages.

I have not seen any evidence that LLMs ‘distribute’ modified software, though they do seem capable of replicating it.

I fail to see how mass scale reproduction of copyrighted code isn't a form of distribution.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#230

Post by socalgal2 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

rurp wrote: post #208

arjie wrote: post #108

Has anyone else noticed a cultural shift around monetization of output? I think there wasn't as much back when I first started using open-source programs, both as a user, and a small-time contributor for decades now. And I've noticed this on other things too. A short while ago, someone on Reddit pointed out that something on Google Maps was wrong and so I went and submitted a fix and told them how to and I received a…

I've never publicly scolded someone for doing free work for tech monopolies but I do understand the impulse. The problem is that it's a completely one-sided relationship, and there are perfectly legitimate concerns about how the biggest tech companies are using their wealth and power. At this point I doubt much of anyone would expect a large tech company to go out of its way to lose money in order to support human co…

It not a completely one sided relationship. I'm using google maps for free!!! That's HUGE benefit to me. That google makes money from it is irrelevant to me. They're paying me by providing a free service that I get tons of usage out all the time.