←back to thread

The fate of "small" open source

(nolanlawson.com)
295 points todsacerdoti | 2 comments | 16 Nov 25 19:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
CuriouslyC ◴[16 Nov 25 19:58 UTC] No.45947919[source]▶
Small open source is still valuable, but the bar is higher. If your project is something that's trivial and nobody just thought to do it before you and bothered to do it after, that's probably not going to survive, but if your project is a small focused tool that handles something difficult really well, it's 100% got a future.
replies(1): >>45950277 #
inferiorhuman ◴[17 Nov 25 02:09 UTC] No.45950277[source]▶
Earlier this year I wrote an interpreter for a niche, proprietary binary format. Someone asked if I could open source it so that they could (more easily) run it on NixOS. I declined as I'm just that strongly opposed to my work being used to train AI models and further entrench the enshittification of the internet.
replies(1): >>45952688 #
1. m000 ◴[17 Nov 25 11:28 UTC] No.45952688[source]▶
Curious: So you only release your interpreter as a binary? Is there some license that explicitly forbids use for AI training? (Although it would probably be unclear if that is really enforceable until someone challenges it.)
replies(1): >>45959041 #
2. inferiorhuman ◴[17 Nov 25 22:19 UTC] No.45959041[source]▶
Yep binary only with an eye towards an AGPL release. No, I don't think verbiage in a license would do much.