My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

I think it will push opensource/ free software hackers to close source their code because it is being used to feed LLMs. Similar to how allot of hardcore free software proponents don't use Github. Is closed source the future?

> Is closed source the future?

No. I don't believe that. I personally want my code to outlast me and help people in the future, but I don't want allow anyone to just scrape it, strip its license and use for whatever. I use (A)GPLv3+, because I believe in "Freedom for the user", not "Freedom for the developer" which permissive licenses provide.

My code is not free labor for anyone. It has conditions attached.

This is the problem that AI solves, though: rather than steal our code directly, now the thieves will just ask their favorite AI to generate a new project that does exactly what our (A)GPLv3+ projects did, which it will be able to do only because it read our code. And, even if the result is eerily similar to what we publish -- we might, after all, be one of the few good examples in the training set for this problem -- it will be difficult to demonstrate, as the AI is more effective at the process of laundering licenses than a human (and no one seems to want to admit that, the same way that a human can be tainted by reading the source code of a project they want to reimplement -- making them have to walk a tightrope if they later want to develop anything similar -- an AI might be similarly tainted). In this shitty new world, our code, is, in fact, free labor for people who are using Cursor to rip it off.

From an open source software perspective, I don't understand the feelings around LLM ingestion.

The models isn't generally recreating your software, but might be spreading your way of thinking in pieces.

I get it from the artists and to a lesser degree, writers. I just don't understand it from software projects.

I guess if you think of it as something to replace you, but since you are already a creator, it is also a way to unlock much greater capacity for turning your ideas into solutions.

Ouch!

I believe in OSS. But damn. I had not really considered this move.

I had a stray thought and that is most SI content I have looked at has watermarks of a sort. Perhaps this could be used?

I dunno, even after considering that move, I'll continue to publish FOSS like before.

I always did it without any expectation of gains from it, and with the intention for people to use it for whatever they want. That calculation hasn't changed, even considering machines will slurp it up now.

I do agree that it sucks for people who do care about what the code is used for, and I hope these people migrate to other licenses that support their ideas about control and ownership.

This will not stop the AI companies from using it in their training data.

We already did migrate to that license: (A)GPLv3+. You can use my code if-and-only-if you won't then hoard your own changes from the world and lock users of your derivative software away from having the same empowerment you did. It isn't about "expectation of gains", and that's a ridiculous way of portraying the situation: it is about a social contract that happens to be enforced by copyright.

And, as such, when your favorite AI generates code similar to my code after having read my code, that's infringement, the same as if a human had done the same thing... only, the AI doesn't bother to consider that angle, and, even if you know to care, you have no way to know what is going on, in the way a human at least usually can know when it is cribbing off of what it knows (though even a human can do this accidentally).

I think the difference between Open Source and Free Software is not known enough.

Open Source software is not about users generally. It’s about other developers. Like a trade gathering. People in the know get there, get the tools they need, build the things they need with these open things and sell them to make a living. That’s fair. I understand, agree, and respect them.

Free Software’s different. Think like end users get the things they need with all the blueprints and specifications of that thing. They can do anything to these things, but if they want to share it, they have to share the new blueprints and specifications as well, to keep the thing available and free from abuse.

I’m in the second camp. I give you something for free, but there are terms attached. If you modify the thing, you have to give modifications away. Plus, you can’t integrate it into a tool which is or can be closed.

I just don’t want the thing i built for you to be closed and used against you to make your life more difficult. Because the aim was to make your life easier in the first place.

Free Software is what you described, but Open Source is what some corporations invented, after Free Software started getting popular, in order to water it down and gain the respect of free software without actually delivering free software.

I will do the same. I am aligned with ESR basically, as expressed in "The Clue Train Manifesto."

Use value of OSS remains high. Because of that, when I can add to the body of OSS, I do. People will do what they do.

All I control is me. They do them.

We all benefit from the high use value.

I do wish those who have made fortunes would contribute more and keep their roots, and the labor of many high quality humans just a bit more firmly in mind.

>I am aligned with ESR basically, as expressed in "The Clue Train Manifesto."

You mean "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Both were published about the same time, long ago, but Eric had nothing to do with "Clue Train".

Yes, my confusion! Great catch!