John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

Post by overfeed » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 10:17 PM UTC

liuliu wrote: post #129

Jare wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the same, I've seen some of my stuff pop up in the weirdest places and I was ok with it. But I understand and respect that people who published code under restrictive licenses may have a problem. The GPL is absolutely "NOT-a-free-gift" license, in both wording and spirit. If someone published something as MIT and doesn't like it being used for LLM training, yeah that person can only blame themselves. For GPL, it…

To clarify, GPL is not a free as in "free gift", but it is free as in "freedom". The giving back part is strongly related to the "freedom", not related to whether you profit from it or not.

Post by sirtaj » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 10:20 PM UTC

adiabatichottub wrote: post #177

mjr00 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. You're right and it's worth pointing out that a lot of open source has the opposite lifecycle: the authors make a thing, aren't sure how to sell it, so they open source it and hope to eventually sell something peripheral, i.e. "open core" with paid plugins or enterprise support. In these cases, open…

There's been something lost over time about the philosophy of open source. It appeared at a time when it was becoming apparent that computers represented a new type of technology where you couldn't just "look under the hood". An independent mechanic or machinist could repair a car to spec. A carpenter didn't need original blueprints of the house to create an addition. You could disassemble a typewriter or a sewing ma…

Post by NeutralCrane » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 10:22 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #89

j-bos wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's rhymes with people getting mad about pharmacos charging outrageous prices for life saving drugs they developed in order to charge outrageous prices. In both cases (drugs and OSS) it's an ugly process that produces great and greatly uneven value to humanity, but the alternatives are less value overall, even to those on the losing side of the uneven value.

>it's an ugly process that produces great and greatly uneven value to humanity That'd be far more believable if it weren't for the fact a vast majority of the research is publicly funded for those drug companies. They have no issues selling their drugs for less money in other markets while still turning a profit. And there's absolutely no indication they'd cease to exist with just outrageous profits, not "crippling e…

Post by ClaudioAnthrop » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 10:26 PM UTC

Post by NeutralCrane » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 10:27 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #114

amarant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case, and even the point, of all open source, even before AI? What's the point of a gift if the receiver isn't allowed to benefit/profit from it? For instance, do you think Linus is upset that ~90% of all internet servers are running his os, for profit, without paying him? Of course he isn't, that was the point of the whole thing! Are you upset Netflix, Google, and heck, even Microsoft are raking in mi…

You dont know what GPL is? It's not an unconditional gift, it's got strings attached. AI training on GPL works is basically IP laundering, you're taking the product without paying the asking prices.