Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing.

And if anything can be reimplemented and there’s no value in the source any more, just the spec or tests, there’s no public-interest reason for any restriction other than completely free, in the GPL sense.

> Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing.

LLM companies and increasingly courts view LLM training as fair use, so copyright licensing does not enter the picture.

>Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing.

It doesn't if Dan Blanchard spends some tokens on it and then licenses the output as MIT.