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

Coding agents could make free software matter again

gjlondon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 351 posts

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#271

Post by gottheUIblues »

apatheticonion wrote: post #40
advael wrote: post #30

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. Of course, it also seems clear in the present landscape that the law often depends more on the conv…

I'm struggling to parse the double negative in that statement, haha. Are you saying that you believe that untested but technically; models trained on GPL sources need to distribute the resulting LLMs under GPL?

If that theory holds - have to ensure that the models have not been trained on any code that is licensed incompatibly with the GPL, in which case the models could not be distributed at all

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#273

Post by wise0wl »

visarga wrote: post #131
anilgulecha wrote: post #130

FOSS is dead - long live, FOSS. FOSS came up around the core idea of liberating software for hardware, and later on was sustained by the idea of a commodity of commons we can build on. But with LLMs we have alternative pathways/enablement for the freedoms: Freedom 0 (Run): LLMs troubleshoot environments and guide installations, making software executable for anyone. Freedom 1 (Study/Change): make modifications, inclu…

I've been saying LLMs are more open than open source for some time...

I have to disagree. LLMs have shown that the only way to participate in the new software ecosystem are through leveraging an extremely powerful position that is create, backed, and maintained through the exploitation of capital, labor, and power (political, legal, corpotate) at levels never really seen before. The model of the Cathedral and the Bazaar was not broken by LLMs but instead the entire ecosystem was changed.

Now the software doesn't matter. The code doesn't matter. The hardware doesn't matter. Anyone can generate anything for anything, as long as they pay the fee. I think it can likely be argued that participation is now gated more than ever and will require usage of an LLM to keep up and maintain some kind of competition or even meager parity. Open weight models are not really a means of crossing the moat; none of the open weight models come close to the functionality, and all of them come from the same types of corporations that are releasing their models for unspecified reasons. The fact remains that the moat created by LLMs for open source software has never been larger.

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#275

Post by allssu »

One thing I keep noticing is that agents are getting better at implementation faster than they’re getting better at judgment.

They can often wire up a library or scaffold a migration, but they’re still pretty shaky at the “should we choose this at all?” layer — pricing cliffs, version floors, lock-in, EOLs, migration blockers, etc.

If coding agents do end up making free software more useful again, I think part of that will come from making open docs / changelogs / migration guides more usable at decision time, not just at implementation time.

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#276

Post by davemp »

luma wrote: post #225
davemp wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming LLMs are fair use is ridiculous bordering on ignorant or disingenuous. Here’s the 4 part test from 17 U.S.C. § 107: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Fail. The use is to make trillions of dollars and be maximally disruptive. 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; Fail. In many cases at least, the copy writte…

You’re mixing up “using” with “copying”. You are allowed to “use” all of a book or movie or code by listening to or watching or reviewing the whole thing. Copyright protects copies. The legal claim here is than training an LLM is sufficiently transformative such that it cannot be construed as a copy.

I replied to someone saying that it’s fair use, which presupposes that it’s a derivative work.

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#277

Post by wolvesechoes »

rzmmm wrote: post #255
wolvesechoes wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one can break monopolies open using LLMs Let me know when you succeed. > the GPL is only a means to an end And how this end is closer with LLMs?

LMMs can be used for example faster reverse engineering, to turn proprietary content into free.

I am not asking what they can be used for. Tell me what they are actually being used for

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#278

Post by wolvesechoes »

est31 wrote: post #242
wolvesechoes wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one can break monopolies open using LLMs Let me know when you succeed. > the GPL is only a means to an end And how this end is closer with LLMs?

> And how this end is closer with LLMs? The blog post of this thread argues that now, even average users have the ability to modify GPL'd code thanks to LLMs. The bigger advantage though is that one can use it to break open software monopolies in the first place. A lot of such monopolies are based on proprietary formats. If LLM swarms can build a browser (not from scratch) and C compiler (from scratch), they can also…

Not interested what they can build. Show me the fruits, not image of fruits

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#279

Post by derektank »

shakna wrote: post #150
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…

Bartz v Anthropic explicitly held ruling on fair use. It is not precedent, here.

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the decision, and how is this section not a ruling on fair use?

“To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies. However, Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy.”

Or in the final judgement, “This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason.”

Re: Coding agents could make free software matter again

#280

Post by m4rtink »

thfuran wrote: post #97
throwaway27448 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's cut the rot off at the root rather than pretending like the fruit is going to nourish us.

I’m not entirely clear on what you’re suggesting abolishing here, copyright, AI, the companies making the frontier models?

Yes. ;-)
Post reply on HN