I don’t really care that the things I make will invariably be scooped up and ingested into the training data.

It’s rather that I think we all ought to stop making software that is primarily useful to businesses, because there is no more joy in that with AI-written PRs driving maintainers into burnout. Big tech finally has no more excuses as to why they don’t maintain all the bedrock libraries themselves. So I say, let them do that.

And on the other hand, since anyone can vibe code something now, the value of GitHub projects as CV material has gone down significantly, so I’d expect less people to do that. Good! Open Source as a community, as a movement, doesn’t need these people.

Let’s get back to the roots.

> Do you think AGPL is going to stop a crawler from incorporating your work into their training set?

No, but i propose we ostracize anyone who uses LLMs for the wrong reasons (i.e. not accessibility), and i hope you do too. The reasons are mostly not related to licenses, though, but it upholds licensing as a nice-to-have consequence.

(loved your comment edit)

That's kinda how I'm thinking about this in terms of licenzing my upcoming projects.

The code is just going to be laundered anyways, so why bother putting on a license like AGPL that might just hinder adoption?

Thanks for leaving it up! I'm on the perimeter of the HN community generally, but one observation is that what you said is present in a lot of discussions here. Kind of an "insistent powerless". I wonder if sentiment analysis over the years would show this is on the rise at HN. As a long time reader it seems like it is to me, but it could certainly be my own bias etc.

I work on climate solutions and find it in a lot of the threads here. It generally sounds like "Not only am I powerless, you are also powerless too", and it comes up in all sorts of ways.

What a thread.

Maybe there is hope for the internet?

Yet here you are, posting self-congratulatory comments about how you don't post self-congratulatory things.

IMHO this is even less meaningful/impactful than the comment that you objected to.

I don't think the point you're trying to make improves the quality of the discussion here. If a downstream project laments a license and the author changes it, that's good communication and cooperation. Complaining that people are happy with the outcome isn't productive.

Lol. Someone liking this change is stupid for letting it lift their outlook, right? How stupid is it then to let this comment rob your hope.

Device lockdown is why our biggest billionaires are billionaires. It's how they made their money and still make it.