> is a recipe for disappointment.

True, but like in a working society, many things are being done even if not explicitly requested by some regulation because it's obvious that they help improving the society for everyone. For me it's pretty automatic, I have money for or coming in thanks to my project? The first thing I will do is giving back to the dependencies that made my project possible, I don't even need to think about it too hard.

And let me add also this, upstream decided that for whatever reason they don't want code generated by AI? It's their project, they are free to decide to follow this route, who cares. Pretty pathetic to whine about it on X, though.

▲

db48x 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Uh, no, you cannot just invent new terms to a license and impose them on people like that. It’s a contract; there is not reading between the lines to guess what other people want. And the GPL explicitly forbids adding additional terms, so Asahi loses the ability to forbid downstream users from using AI to modify the source code.

	▲	Copenjin 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure it's a contract, but what you describe is how bad actors will destroy the opensource movement. You know how some countries have high-trust societies even without specific norms and others definitely don't? Same thing. Opensource needs high-trust and a community that punish some undesirable behaviors and who doesn't follow unwritten, but obvious, rules. > so Asahi loses the ability to forbid downstream users from using AI to modify the source code. Did anyone suggest they want to do this? It's in their own Asahi that they don't want AI.