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

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

gitlab.redox-os.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 504 posts

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#421

Post by rswail »

hparadiz wrote: post #256
rswail wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to read the report from the US Copyright office that specifically says that it's *not* (c) copyright of the operator. It doesn't matter if the "change this variable name" instruction ends up with the same result as a human operator using a text editor. There is a big difference between "change this variable name" and "refactor this code base to extract a singleton".

You may as well be the MPAA right now throwing threats around sharing MP3s. We're past the point of caring and the laws will catch up with reality eventually. The US copyright office says things that get turned over in court all the time.

lol, ask the software industry whether or not their "past the point of caring" about the licenses on their software.

Whether it's an OSS license or a commercial license, both are dependent on copyright as the underlying IP Right.

The courts have so far (in the US) agreed with the Copyright office's reasoning.

Use an LLM as a tool, mostly OK.

Use it to create source from scratch, no copyright as the author isn't human.

Use it to modify existing software, the result is only copyright on whatever original remains.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#422

Post by zozbot234 »

est31 wrote: post #403
notpachet wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude and GPT regularly write programs that are way better than what I would’ve written Is that really true? Like, if you took the time to plan it carefully, dot every i, cross every t? The way I think of LLM's is as "median targeters" -- they reliably produce output at the centre of the bell curve from their training set. So if you're working in a language that you're unfamiliar with -- let's say I wanted to make…

Have you tried the latest models at best settings? I've been writing software for 20 years. Rust since 10 years. I don't consider myself to be a median coder, but quite above average. Since the last 2 years or so, I've been trying out changes with AI models every couple months or so, and they have been consistently disappointing. Sure, upon edits and many prompts I could get something useful out of it but often I wou…

> I am talking about Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3 here, at high+ effort settings

So you have to burn tokens at the highest available settings to even have a chance of ending up with code that's not completely terrible (and then only in very specific domains), but of course you then have to review it all and fix all the mistakes it made. So where's the gain exactly? The proper goal is for those 500 lines to be almost always truly comparable to what a human would've written, and not turn into an unmaintainable mess. And AI's aren't there yet.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#423

Post by torginus »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #340
emperorxanu wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like every person stating things of this nature are literally not able to communicate effectively (though this is not a barrier anymore, you can get a dog to vibe code games with the right workflow, which to me seems like quite an intellectual thing to be able to do. Despite that, you will make this argument when trying to use copilot to do something, the worst model in the entire industry. If an AI can replac…

> If an AI can replace you at your job, you are not a very good programmer. Me and millions of other local yokel programmers who work in regional cities at small shops, in house at businesses, etc are absolutely COOKED. No I cant leet code, no I didnt go to MIT, no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function. I can scrap together a lot of useful business stuff but no I am not a very good programmer.

I suspect the value you bring to the table is that you are good enough a programmer to translate the problems of the people you work with into working code.

LLMs can do it somewhat, but it can probably leetcode better than even most of the the people who went to MIT.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#424

Post by als0 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #422
est31 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried the latest models at best settings? I've been writing software for 20 years. Rust since 10 years. I don't consider myself to be a median coder, but quite above average. Since the last 2 years or so, I've been trying out changes with AI models every couple months or so, and they have been consistently disappointing. Sure, upon edits and many prompts I could get something useful out of it but often I wou…

> I am talking about Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3 here, at high+ effort settings So you have to burn tokens at the highest available settings to even have a chance of ending up with code that's not completely terrible (and then only in very specific domains), but of course you then have to review it all and fix all the mistakes it made. So where's the gain exactly? The proper goal is for those 500 lines to be almost always…

You really do need to try the latest ones. You can’t extrapolate from your previous experiences.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#425

Post by kuschku »

khalic wrote: post #244
_zagj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always assumed this was the case anyway; MIT is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the mostly used licenses No, it wasn't that way in the 2000s, e.g., on platforms like SourceForge, where OSS devs would go out of their way to learn the terms and conditions of the popular licenses and made sure to respect each other's license choices, and usually defaulted to GPL (or LGPL), unless there was a compelling reason not to: h…

... you think It was good time? Not being able to publish anything without sifting through all the libs licences? Remembering legalese, jurisprudence, edge cases, on top of everything else? MIT became ubiquitous because it gives us peace of mind

You have to go through all the dependencies anyway, to roughly judge their quality, and the activity of their maintainers. Quickly looking at the license doesn't take any more effort.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#426

Post by kuschku »

orf wrote: post #415
eschaton wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re going to lie and say there was no LLM involved, what else are you going to lie about? Copying code from another codebase with incompatible license terms, perhaps? I would say people should be wary of any contributions whatsoever from a filthy fucking liar.

> what else are you going to lie about? Nothing? Everything? Does it fucking matter? Assigning trust across a boundary like this is stupid, and that’s my point. Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”? That’s on you for stupidly assigning any trust…

> Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”?

At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#427

Post by kuschku »

orf wrote: post #348
flykespice wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Never? That would be tax avoidance and theft, both crimes.

So is fraudulently claiming your code has a different author & copyright (you) than it actually has (whether that's someone else's code, or LLM-generated code).

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#428

Post by kuschku »

slibhb wrote: post #258
dakolli wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you rely on llms, you're simply not going to make it. The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator. Now how do we think things are going to turn out for the person that doesn't even think they need to learn how to use a calculator. Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app,…

> The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator Sure but once you learn long multiplication/division algorithms by hand there's not much point in using them. By high school everyone is using a calculator. > Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app Are you suggesting people shou…

> Sure but once you learn long multiplication/division algorithms by hand there's not much point in using them. By high school everyone is using a calculator.

And many lose the ability to do long division by high school, where they'll have to relearn it for polynomial long division, which typical school calculators can't handle easily.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#429

Post by kuschku »

okanat wrote: post #319
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #259

Dangerous that all these projects keep going MIT. We wouldn't have an open source community if it weren't for protections against modification without sharing. Almost all software today would be proprietary, as it was before.

No. People shared code because they wanted to. Open standards are great tools against emerging monopolies. So the losing side used that. IBM lost OS/2 vs NT war. They propped up Linux. Intel wanted to have a second option to Microsoft in server space. AMD wants to gain some developers against Nvidia Cuda monopoly. That's the reason they contribute. Even Linux's own leadership decided against extra freedoms for users;…

Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them.

I usually prefer writing drivers and weird protocols from scratch, but often that's not possible, so I'll have to spend months discussing with some manufacturers' legal teams before I'm able to receive the sources.

Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#430

Post by khalic »

eschaton wrote: post #410
khalic wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unenforceable means they can't actually enforce it since they can't discriminate high quality LLM code from hand typed

[flagged]

Keep wishing, in the meantime some people have to deal with the real world and plan accordingly
Post reply on HN