←back to thread

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

(twitter.com)
931 points sohzm | 1 comments | 04 Jul 25 02:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.237s | source
Show context
HacklesRaised ◴[04 Jul 25 07:57 UTC] No.44462235[source]▶
One starts to wonder whether the LLM vendors laissez-faire approach to the legality of ingesting copyrighted / licensed material will start to infect the industry in general?
replies(4): >>44462347 #>>44463401 #>>44463512 #>>44473205 #
xoralkindi ◴[04 Jul 25 08:15 UTC] No.44462347[source]▶
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?
replies(2): >>44463415 #>>44463794 #
bayindirh ◴[04 Jul 25 11:02 UTC] No.44463415[source]▶
> 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.

replies(2): >>44463790 #>>44464741 #
saurik ◴[04 Jul 25 12:03 UTC] No.44463790[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44464473 #
ddingus ◴[04 Jul 25 13:40 UTC] No.44464473[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>44464534 #
diggan ◴[04 Jul 25 13:48 UTC] No.44464534[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>44469617 #>>44474584 #
1. saurik ◴[05 Jul 25 02:17 UTC] No.44469617[source]▶
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).