> Personally, I think putting an interoperability protocol implementation behind a copyleft license is a little unfortunate!
Huh, haven't thought of it. Just relicensed ancs4linux to MIT.
Huh, haven't thought of it. Just relicensed ancs4linux to MIT.
It’s things like this that give me hope for the world.
We are facing very real global and societal issues that people on this site are actively exacerbating, like disinformation and climate change.
If a dude changing an inconsequential text file on GitHub gives you hope for the world, then please broaden your perspective.
Not to be Debbie Downer but making one small corner of the world a little bit better has no effect on what matters to billions of people.
We are facing very real global and societal issues that people are actively exacerbating.
If a dude explaining that there’s not much use in complaining robs you of hope for the world, then please broaden your perspective.Just look at the s***show on Android.
That being said, I’m with you in spirit and in action, but realistically it’s pointless outside of living in accordance with your values.
Edit: Re-reading that, i just told you that your principles are pointless, and thats fucked up and wrong. I’m going to live in accordance with mine and not delete this, but apologies.
Maybe there is hope for the internet?
The code is just going to be laundered anyways, so why bother putting on a license like AGPL that might just hinder adoption?
I'm using AI assistance a bunch, nothing fully vibe coded (yet) so what's it really matter? My "novel" approach to BOM line item attributes?
No, but i propose we ostracize anyone who uses LLMs for the wrong reasons (i.e. not accessibility), and i hope you do too. The reasons are mostly not related to licenses, though, but it upholds licensing as a nice-to-have consequence.
(loved your comment edit)
Doesn’t work like that. Better adapt and see how you can turn the tool to do your bidding rather than try to piss against the wind in the hope the wind changes direction the next 5 seconds. It won’t.
Most of those struggles had intense lobbying from the industry with more or less the same discourse you have. I don't care if AI can do my bidding if it destroys the planet and the livelihood of my loved ones with it, just like i don't care if lead pipes can bring water to my home if they bring saturnism to my entire community.
It’s rather that I think we all ought to stop making software that is primarily useful to businesses, because there is no more joy in that with AI-written PRs driving maintainers into burnout. Big tech finally has no more excuses as to why they don’t maintain all the bedrock libraries themselves. So I say, let them do that.
And on the other hand, since anyone can vibe code something now, the value of GitHub projects as CV material has gone down significantly, so I’d expect less people to do that. Good! Open Source as a community, as a movement, doesn’t need these people.
Let’s get back to the roots.
I work on climate solutions and find it in a lot of the threads here. It generally sounds like "Not only am I powerless, you are also powerless too", and it comes up in all sorts of ways.
[0] copyleft-licensed library that could be legally linked into non-copyleft code base.
EUPL is also basically GPL without being viral, too.