you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago* (10 children)

Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I'd like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.

Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use

    Was likely bullshit. Just like just about everything else people behind for profit LLMs say about their business practices.

    I'd like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.

    Almost certainly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Sure but you moved the goalpost from ''they weren't allowed'' to "they aren't being honest". There's people in this thread who are in the repos, so we can find that out without assuming.

    Also, at least their model is opensource and can easily be selfhosted on consumer hardware. Helps with your datacenter point from earlier. Like if this project does what it says its supposed to do, it's genuinely interesting. If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Sure but you moved the goalpost from ''they weren't allowed'' to "they aren't being honest

    No. I included the lack of honesty in my original explanation.

    If anyone's moving goalposts, it's you with your constant shifting from one point to the other to excuse their behavior.

    If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.

    Unless OP is a total lie, they clearly are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Why are you assuming I am excusing their behaviour?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Because you keep grasping for completely hypothetical scenarios in which it's excusable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Would you find it acceptable if their claims at face value were true?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Another unlikely hypothetical.

    Their claims are almost certainly not true. Which is part of the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You're just refusing to engage with point. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

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

    No. You keep restating points I've already addressed, pretending that I haven't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago*

    Yeah, its a strategy when you want someone to understand something they clearly haven't. You restate it in different words. You may have addressed it, that doesn't mean you understood my position. I don't mean that to sound bitchy btw. 😅 We just chatting. We cool. 👉 👉

  • source
  • parent