Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonask | Hacker News Reader

To the people downvoting this comment: I get it, it's a vulgar choice of words. But the fact of the matter is, if somebody else is getting paid based on your work, and you aren't being compensated your fair share, that's extractive and abusive.

Choosing GPL and similar licenses is the only way you can publish open source software without running this risk. As professional programmers, we must insist that people either pay us for our work or act as a equal collaborators.

And yes, there's a reckoning coming for AI companies who trained their models on GPL software.

View on HN

> But the fact of the matter is, if somebody else is getting paid based on your work, and you aren't being compensated your fair share, that's extractive and abusive.

That is not a fact at all. I choose to use permissive licenses because I am giving my work to the public out of charity. If someone uses it to turn a profit, and I never see a dime, I have not been exploited or abused in the least degree. It would certainly be virtuous for the people making a profit to give something back, but it isn't required. If I did require that, it wouldn't be much of a gift.

I will say this: Corporations don't need your charity.

This lack of class-consciousness is the reason the OP used the c-word.

> And yes, there's a reckoning coming for AI companies who trained their models on GPL software.

What would that look like in your opinion? Hard to fathom that the people with all the money and power could get into trouble over a licensing dispute.

> Hard to fathom that the people with all the money and power could get into trouble over a licensing dispute.

It's because of something called "Rule of Law"... Most free societies in the world have it.

If you find it difficult to fathom that rule of law applies to corporations, maybe it's time to start practicing fathoming it, or they will have won before the fight even started.

I’m aware of the rule of law, and enjoy living in a country where it (seamingly) still applies. I’m just questioning the viability (in practice, not in theory) of legal action in the US (where this would likely play out) given the economic hurdles to clear for the accusing party and the general chaos.

I mean, I hope you’re right…

You're referencing "rule of law" but... what exactly do you mean? Bartz v. Anthropic resulted in a ruling that training from copyrighted books is fine if you buy them. Doe v. GitHub dismissed DMCA claim, saying Copilot generated code doesn't infringe on open source licences.

So far the precedent and the law implies the open source licence won't matter for training and the result. And these decisions will now be brought up in the US in any new cases raised.

> But the fact of the matter is, if somebody else is getting paid based on your work, and you aren't being compensated your fair share, that's extractive and abusive.

GPL doesn't prevent that at all. That's not why Asahi made that change. It's about contributing back to the project, not the money they want to see.

A reckoning for what? I've also read some GPL source, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to publish closed source software, as long as I'm not copying anything.

The inverse judo throw of GPL also turning free software advocates into copyright maximalists is quite unfortunate.

It doesn't change the matter of fact that it's insulting language, and I downvoted it either way.

Developers have their own good reasons to stick with permissive licenses. Either because they are completely selfless, or they want to help users who want to kick-start their own business selling software. Just virtuous reasons.

This made sense before mass-extraction of value from open source was possible. The game has changed in a very significant way.

It's one thing to pick a few berries in the commons, even to make jam and sell it from your stall. AI companies are setting up jam factories.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com