with a long tail of grumpy holdouts who adhere to free software principles
Nothing in the core free software principles - namely, the four freedoms - actually concerns the development process and tools used - or copyright. It’s all about what you can do with the software.
The GPL is more of a “hack” that “perverts” copyright to enforce free software principles - because that was the tool available, not because the people who wrote it really liked intellectual property.
Having to import my tariff management solution is a critical national security risk. Needs to be built-in. PEP soon, please?
What a great way to reduce external dependencies and mitigate supply chain attacks!
That makes me think, perhaps, you might be able to set it to exec("stuff") or True…
That is why I use just int main(){...} without arguments instead.
And they’re all with different commit message:
“switched arse to bottom to create a more uplifting vibe”
“took arse out and put bottom in to keep my language warm and friendly”
“thought bottom would sound a lot nicer than arse, so I used it”
And so on…
And who hasn’t contributed any code to this particular repo (according to github insights).
I see there an access violation…
That’s not very deep. Closer to plain old logistic regression, really.
That seems a somewhat contrived example. Yes, it can theoretically happen - but in practice it would happen with a library, and most libraries are LGPL (or more permissive) anyway. By contrast, there have been plenty of stories lately of people who wrote MIT/BSD software, and then got upset when companies just took the code to add in their products, without offering much support in return.
Also, there’s a certain irony in saying what essentially amounts to, “Please license your code more permissively, because I want to license mine more restrictively”.
The fact is, currently, AI can’t write good code. I’m sure that at some point in the future they will - but we’re not there yet, and probably have some years still.
Imagine at some point in the future, where an AI can program any piece of software you want for you, and do it well. At that point, the value of code itself will be minimal. If you keep your code proprietary, I’ll just get the AI to re-implement the functionality anew and publish it.
Therefore, all code will be permissive open source. There would be no point in keeping anything proprietary, and also no point in applying copyleft. But at this point the copyleft “hack” would simply be unnecessary, so permissive open source would be just as good.
Until then, me not using AI doesn’t in any way prevent others from training AI on my code. So I just don’t see training on my code as a valid reason to avoid it. I don’t use AI currently - but that’s for entirely pragmatic reasons: I’m not yet happy with the code it generates.