340
Creator of free Adobe clones unveils open-source Microsoft Office Excel, PowerPoint, and Word replications — Autodesk tools and other subscription-based services may come next (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
172 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Brandon Thomas, developer of ArtCraft, a suite of open-source creative tools meant to replicate Adobe applications for free, has now announced apps to replace Microsoft Office tools such as Excel, PowerPoint, and Word, respectively, named GridCraft, DeckCraft, and WordCraft, that are created with Claude. Thomas has shared his new clones to ArtCraft GitHub, making them free for all to download.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There is still a distinction between bad human-written source code and AI slop.

The human holds the copyright of his work and can do whatever he wants with it, including distributing it under a open/libre license, i.e., open source.

AI slop? Not so much. The model is very likely trained on stolen work. It's tainted. Nobody owns the copyright of everything it generates. No one can "open source" it. The license every one receives is voided.

And both who (intentionally) releases bad code to the crowd lack the spirit of open source, but the AI one is also right out illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I agree with this reply here 100%. My previous reply was just about the fact that code quality isn't important in discussion of what takes to be an Open Source code or not. Because your previous argument was "it's bad code, how can this possibly be Open Source" (paraphrased here just).

    I also think if you cannot guarantee the process does not involve in any training data from Adobe software, then how can you proof this is really clean room implementation? And besides the fact that if majority of the code is vibe coded shouldn't be copyrightable, because machines are not humans who has copyright. And to anyone who argues that LLMs are just tools, no, they are not. It's more complicated than that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •