Coding agents could make free software matter again

Post by skydhash » Mon, Mar 30, 2026, 2:27 PM UTC

qweqweqwe1 wrote: post #259

apgwoz wrote: post #257

The point this article makes, that suddenly agents can do the work of customizing free software, completely makes sense. But, the reality is that the Free Software movement is opposed to the way Lemons are built today, and would not accept a world like this. (Rightfully!) My belief is that Lemons effectively kill open source in the long run, and generally speaking, people forget that Free Software is even a thing. Th…

wtf is lemon? can't you just write normally

Post by 627467 » Mon, Mar 30, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #187

627467 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was made redundant recently "due to AI" (questionable) and it feels like my works in some way contributed to my redundancy where my works contributed to the profits made by these AI megacorps while I am left a victim. I think anyone here can understand and even share that feeling. And I agree with your "questionable" - its just the lame HR excuse du jour. My 2c: - AI megacorps aren't the only ones gaining, we all…

> It feels like megacorps own the keys right now, but that’s a temporary. Remains to be seen. Hardware prices are increasing. Manufacturers are abandoning the consumer sector to serve the all consuming AI demands. Not to mention the constant attempts to lock down the computers so that we don't own them. What does the future hold for us? Unknown. It's not looking too good though. What good is hardware if we're priced…

Post by snarfy » Mon, Mar 30, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

apatheticonion wrote: post #21

Having over a decade of open source software I've written freely available online, I actually really appreciate the value that AI && LLMs have provided me. The thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the fact that my works were likely included in the training data and, if it doesn't violate my licenses (GNU 2/3), it certainly feels against the spirit of what I intended when distributing my works. I was made redu…

Post by throwaway27448 » Mon, Mar 30, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

andoando wrote: post #43

floathub wrote: post #3

Free software has never mattered more. All the infrastructure that runs the whole AI-over-the-internet juggernaut is essentially all open source. Heck, even Claude Code would be far less useful without grep, diff, git, head, etc., etc., etc. And one can easily see a day where something like a local sort Claude Code talking to Open Weight and Open Source models is the core dev tool.

Why isnt LLM training itself open sourced? With all the compute in the world, something like Folding@home here would be killer

Post by jrm4 » Mon, Mar 30, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #246

tpmoney wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there's no meaningful case by the letter of the law that use of training data that include GPL-licensed software in models that comprise the core component of modern LLMs doesn't obligate every producer of such models to make both the models and the software stack supporting them available under the same terms. Why do you think "fair use" doesn't apply in this case? The prior Bartz vs Anthropic ruling laid…

You sound like you're citing the general Internet understanding of "fair use", which seems to amount to "I can do whatever I like to any copyrighted content as long as maybe I mutilate it enough and shout 'FAIR USE!' loudly enough." On the real measures of "fair use", at least in the US: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ I would contend that it absolutely face plants on all four measures. T…