69
"No right to relicense this project" - on changing the license of Mark Pilgrim's chardet from LGPL to MIT after a vibe-coded rewrite (github.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059976

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967

for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim, he is/was a prolific author, blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527

HN comments

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 47 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The AI-rewrite should be considered a derivative, & therefore subject to the parent-license, I believe.

Except that AI doesn't have any right to copyright, & therefore to licensing.

Which means that it's just an illegal derivative made by a tool.

_ /\ _

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not sure why downvoted, this is the correct take

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    "Not sure why downvoted"

    Many find "me" unacceptable/offensive.

    Downvoting me is fine: it makes them happy, & I don't value such "social-validation" delusion.

    They're making the world be more the way they want!

    Isn't that worth something?

    Integrity's worth more to me than "friends", so human-"reality" & I are on divergant-paths..

    My continuum/soul won't be getting caught in this-world again, if I succeed.

      ( :

    _ /\ _

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    This whole "we don't want the GPL" movement is ridiculous. The modern open source ecosystem exists because of the GPL, and moving away from it means rapid reversion to straight up theft of code by big corporations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Even more ridiculous when they vibe code to do it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Anything "vibe coded" is almost certainly stealing GPL code. Not like the industry hasn't been doing that for years, but now they don't even need to hire engineers to steal the code, they just close their eyes and pretend it's all their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Not to mention permissive licensing legally allows a project to go closed-source, effectively rugpulling its userbase, with no recourse.

    I keep pushing this as an example, but imagine Bluesky corporate closed-sourcing ATproto and paywalling third-party and self-hosted PDSes once they run out of VC funding and need to start turning a profit somehow, since ATproto is permissively licensed rather than being copyleft licensed, they could do that.

    By contrast, copyleft licenses ban this type of rugpulling and GPL3 calls out and bans tivoization (what RH does with the RHEL EULA) by name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent