51–60 of 224 posts
Time to train an "LLM" on it and have it reproduce the source code 1-to-1, so I can use it without a license!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
I mean if llms are trained on it ... and a lot of other things and then LLM can output the source code from a input ... then wouldn't it be open source / public domain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also not Free Software, as it also violates the Free Software definition[0]. 0. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Of course. Has anyone ever found a case of a license that not one or the other? The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition are structured differently, but pretty obviously map from one to another.
Could we please change the title to say : "Gumroad is source available"? This license is clearly fails OSD and is not open source by the industry standard; perpetuating a false statement is unhelpful. https://opensource.org/osd
[flagged]
TFA's license doesn't meet the definition you posted. It restricts who can use/redistribute/modify the software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, HN is a technical audience, not an average person in this regard. People here know the difference or are easily able to understand it if they haven't been confronted with it.
>People here know the difference or are easily able to understand it if they haven't been confronted with it. No. They're trying to force a definition of open-source that does not exist to make it FOSS because FOSS people want everything to be FOSS so try to pressure people into it. The definition is defined by dictionaries and it's different from what is said on here. Quite simply, they're wrong. They want it to mea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Original discussion thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2406614
One day work to start a multi-million project, 13 years ago. That's the real vibing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. Has anyone ever found a case of a license that not one or the other? The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition are structured differently, but pretty obviously map from one to another.
There's plenty of OSD licenses that don't fit the FSD, but a free software license is necessarily open source, so the opposite can't happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, HN is a technical audience, not an average person in this regard. People here know the difference or are easily able to understand it if they haven't been confronted with it.
>People here know the difference or are easily able to understand it if they haven't been confronted with it. No. They're trying to force a definition of open-source that does not exist to make it FOSS because FOSS people want everything to be FOSS so try to pressure people into it. The definition is defined by dictionaries and it's different from what is said on here. Quite simply, they're wrong. They want it to mea…
Time to train an "LLM" on it and have it reproduce the source code 1-to-1, so I can use it without a license!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
I think the line b/w derivative work and new work might be different. I mean if llms are trained on it ... and a lot of other things and then LLM can output the source code from a input ... then wouldn't it be open source / public domain