The conversation

bayindirhHNSource author
Lessons learnedExperience excerpt · English

> Just curious - why not? Because that code is not out there for its license to be violated and …

> Just curious - why not? Because that code is not out there for its license to be violated and earned money from it. All the choices from license and how it's shared is deliberate. The code out there is written by a human, for human consumption with strict terms to be kept open. In other words, I'm in this for fun, and my effort is not for resale, even if resale of it pays me royalties , because it's not there for that. Nobody asked for my explicit content before scraping it. Nobody told me that it'll be stripped from its license and sold and make somebody rich. I found that some of my code ended in "The Stack", which is arguably permissively licensed code only, but some forks of GPL repositories are there (i.e.: My fork of GNOME LightDM which contains some specific improvements). I'm writing code for a long time. I have written a novel compression algorithm (was not great but completely novel, and I have published it), a multi-agent autonomous trading system when multi-agent systems were unknown to most people (which is my M.Sc. …

Original discussionAI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it750 source comments · at import
2

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

TO
TomasBMHN

> I don't want my code scraped and remixed by AI systems. Just curious - why not? Is it mostly about the commercial AI violating the license of your repos? And if commercial scraping was banned, and only allowed to FOSS-producing AI, would you be OK with publishing again? Or is there a fundamental problem with AI? Personally, I use AI to produce FOSS that I probably wouldn't have produced (to that extent) without it. So for me, it's somewhat the opposite: I want to publish this work because it can be useful to others as a proof-of-concept for some intended use cases. It doesn't matter if an AI trains on it, because some big chunk was generated by AI anyway, but I think it will be useful to other people. Then again, I publish knowing that I can't control whether some dev will (manually or automatically) remix my code commercially and without attribution. Could be wrong though.

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 2

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

KR
kridsdale3HN

I appreciate that you wrote this, it's a take on this issue I've been thinking about from the perspective that I was looking for.

Full original
TO
TomasBMHN

Thanks for replying. That's fair. I completely agree that much of LLM training was (and still very much is) in violation of many licenses. At the very least, the fact that the source of training data is obfuscated even years after the training, shows that developers didn't care about attribution and licenses - if they didn't deliberately violate them outright. Your conditions make sense. If I had anything I thought was too valuable or prone to be blatantly stolen, I would think thrice about whom I share it with. Personally, ever since discovering FOSS, I realized that it'd be very difficult to enforce any license. The problem with public repositories is that it's trivial for those not following the gentleman's agreement to plagiarize the code. Other than recognizing blatant copy-pasting, I don't know how I'd prevent anyone from just trivially remixing my content. Instead, I changed to se…

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.