2026-05-05 13:55 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@0x0@hachyderm.io 2026-05-05 13:57
@menelion That makes as much sense as (GNU's) gcc demanding that any software compiled with it must be GPL. I.e., you're FUDing. @hillu
-
@hillu@infosec.exchange 2026-05-05 14:28
@menelion I feel adequately entertained. Why would you restrict your argument to restrictive licensing regarding AI use and not, for instance, use in weapon systems, porn, or solving world hunger?
-
@chazh@mastodon.social 2026-05-05 14:29
@menelion @hillu That’s just not going to happen. I read it as the Zig devs controlling *their* workflow only. Package management in Zig is decentralized, that’s 100% in your control. Plus, there is no venture capital involved that would force them to betray us. Caveat, I qualify as an AI hater (see previous note on venture capital).
-
@tuxmain@toot.aquilenet.fr 2026-05-05 16:50
@menelion Any clause "No open-source library written in Zig is allowed to contain AI-assisted code" would be void if the language is under any free software license. That said, I have the idea of a slop-in-the-dependency-dag-detector cargo tool. Even if there are people who seem to be using genAI carefully (at least in the narrow scope of writing code), there are too many who just don't care, so trust becomes even more expensive nowadays, and people have reasons to refuse AI contribs in block.
-
@kristoff@hachyderm.io 2026-05-06 21:24
@menelion @hillu @menelion you're slippery sloping a bit too hard :^) Zig is licensed MIT precisely to give users the maximum flexibility possible when using Zig.