24
Void Linux maintainer orphans 100+ packages over AI policy dispute (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

I'm not against LLM generated code in FOSS but it's nice to see a dev holding the line. There are a million distros to choose from, at least one needs to be 100% certified meat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

    Sop code cannot be FOSS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    This is arguably true but not tested in court yet. Free open source software licenses are all based on copyright, which can only be applied to the creative works of a human. Anthropic and OpenAI would love to see that wording changed, but as of now it looks like no LLM output can be copyrighted at all. Which is really hilarious for any company that hopes to replace their creative staff with AI. It does mean that GPL and any other software license (FOSS or not) can't be applied to slop code as it's outputted directly. Again, not settled law, but the letter of the law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    We'll see what happens the next time Windows source code leaks if it contains AI slop code. It'd be heaven sent to ReactOS.

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

    Only the parts written by LLMs would be public domain. Everything else would still be copyrighted by Microsoft. See https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html

    And since there's no easy way for outsiders to determine which part is what, it would be a minefield for anyone trying to use the leaked source code. ReactOS devs would have to stay far, far away to avoid giving MS an easy way to sink the project

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Aren't all llm generated code foss?

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

    With this logic, you can steal the code of someone, ask the LLM to copy it, and then it loses copyright.

    LLMs ignore any kind of licence when they absorb the code they train on, and as such cannot be part of a truly FOSS mentality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago

    Oh sweet, I didn't know Void had a policy on this. Always good to see.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    As soon as the claude subscription will be too expensive, it will be abandonware because he doesn't understand shit about his own software lmaooo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    He was maintaining them long before Claude. Which is probably why he said "fuck you, I'm going home" when he gets shit on for using an LLM today. He was taking full responsibility for the comment's validity but because he pasted the output of a model, he's public enemy number one.

    I'd have written the commit to make @classabbyamp the new maintainer, but I'm petty.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •