1199
Is Windows FOSS now?
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
1199 points (95.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
29742 readers
386 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Anything built by AI/LLMs should be FOSS by law. Oh I dream of the day.
Your wish is granted.
But you can only view the source code through an LLM
a finger on the monkey paw curls
Not FOSS, just public domain.
What a vibe
Hitachi Vibe!
It already is, vibe coders cannot hold copyright on AI-generated code
Not to be pedantic, not holding copyright ≠ FOSS.
FOSS explicitly means that the developer has a copyright and is explicitly giving a license for people to use it with FOSS provisions.
It would be more accurate to say AI Vibe code is in the public domain.
Public domain code is a subset of FOSS code, so I don't think that was inaccurate
In general terms, it isn’t really. Or at least it is a controversial topic still subject to discussion.
https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
As to this specific topic, the fact that all of the code has to be open source is part of the 10 criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
As such, you can’t consider open source the public domain portions of a codebase that also has proprietary portions.
That's not entirely true, it doesn't make it FOSS.
Vibe coders sign a contract when they use AI to generate stuff, which gives rights away to the company. Regardless of copyright protections from the state, a contract is in most cases legally binding.
Copyright law requires human authorship as opposed to random generation. This doesn't inherently exclude all generative works, algorithms that were carefully crafted and datasets curated can potentially have their results considered "authored" but the AI Company owners that made them.
In order to make it true we need to pass laws that regulate the AI companies and their slop. In the meantime, I recommend nobody uses slop code. Actually, I'd recommend that regardless of ownership rights.
I signed no contracts to download the open source local models I use for code generation, just for what it's worth
Ah yes, that model. Of course. You're right. I would know because I have read the details for every model in existence and can clearly infer which one you're talking about. Yes.
There's lots of open source models you can download from Hugging Face, Ollama, and even github without signing any contracts or terms of use. Gemma3, Llama, Ministral, GLM, olmo, and a bajillion others. GLM-4.7-Flash is a very capable agentic model that can run at very usable speeds on commodity hardware - and none of what it generates is dictated by any agreements or policies agreed to anywhere.
https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms
You agreed to these terms when you downloaded Gemma3 from an official source and if you did not then you're an unlicensed user AKA piracy.
Interestingly, none of the official sources for the model weights clickwrap the download in a way that forces the user to read or agree to those terms before downloading. There is precedent for such terms being unenforceable when the user isn't forced to agree to the terms.