Post #3879034

2026-07-16 12:41 UTC

@alxd@writing.exchange @tinker@infosec.exchange you know the one big GPL kernel is the one falling down this rabbit hole, and the BSDs are the ones saying "hell no" to it, right? You know the emacs project pre-emptively forked because they don't trust GNU to set good policy after the temporary hold, right? The four freedoms way of thinking has always been too libertarian to meet these kind of moments, and they're squatting the term "free software," which means that if we want a movement that actually addresses the inherent political nature of software, we need new language - which is hard, but we can at least not divert credit to the exact people fumbling the topic of AI right now.

Replies (2)

@lykso@tiny.tilde.website 2026-07-16 16:51

@MaddieM4@raphus.social @alxd@writing.exchange @tinker@infosec.exchange I don't think licenses are sufficient to address the issue, but I've been using the Peer Production License while waiting for more people to come around. What are your inclinations regarding a way to deal with this, if don't mind my asking?

Open ##3879036
@phl@mastodon.social 2026-07-17 18:07

@MaddieM4@raphus.social @alxd@writing.exchange @tinker@infosec.exchange I wonder if alxd's statement might be still true, just in a different way. Not approaching from the communities, but from the licence. I'd think any reasonable person (but they're not reasonable :D) would be super careful about breaking licences around GPL, be it including snippets from non-copyleft in copyleft code, or the other way around. So maybe GPL comes useful. But then, as far as I've heard, there's not been clear cases settled about slopware plagiarism yet.

Open ##3922571