2026-10-11 08:58 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@peacepath@lemmy.world 2026-10-11 12:01
Copyright is a deprivation of freedom, and the GPL comes using this rules to turn around them. I won’t defend copyright. AI comes with more important problems, such as ecology, and creating monster private companies that have far too much power. The tool in itself can really be usefull when well used. Many people use it and get nice results. Many people abuse it, and many people abuse themselves with it. It is true with a hammer too. I don’t think “hammer-free” is a feature, even if their are many domain in which I don’t see the point of using a hammer (and so “made with a hammer” isn’t a feature either). Also, I can’t find any example in history of a technology that was successfully banned despite being usefull. Some have been regulated, such as nuclear industries, but that was not perfect and needed a continuous and hard strugle. The strict “no-AI” movement has already lost its battle, at most we could get regulations, maybe…
-
@m532@lemmy.ml 2026-10-11 12:02
GPL wields the copyright system against itself, like a virus. The goal is the complete destruction of the copyright system and the liberation of all software…
-
@NoLemurs@lemmy.world 2026-10-11 12:43
GPL (and copyleft generally) gets way more attention than it should. In the wild, MIT and similar permissive licenses are by far the most common. Linux is on GPL, but that may be a historical artifact as much as anything. I don’t know if Linus himself would choose it if he were making the choice today. The wider FOSS community, in my experience, leans permissive rather than copyleft. The copyleft people are just loud.