you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

But it's not all about the law. FOSS software also is a moral stance, of wanting code to be public and respected, and LLMs have been ignoring all that FOSS stands for.

Using LLM generated code goes against the core concepts of FOSS, and that's what matters, not really whether or not it is formally in the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    FOSS 100% does NOT have a moral stance. once you asign morality to your software, its no longer FOSS. freedom as in beer means itt costs you no money, freedom as in speech means you can use it on a missle guidance system.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    The "free" is as in speech, which is a moral stance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    ok, we are arguing english language. so yes but i was addressing the commenters implied morality on use. which is not allowed

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    I did not take that implication from their post. I don't think that we are arguing semantics. They are saying that licensing code as FOSS is a moral stance, and so is refusing to use llm code generation.

  • source
  • parent