But it’s not all about the law. FOSS software also is a moral stance, of wanting code to be public and respected, and LLMs have been ignoring all that FOSS stands for.
Using LLM generated code goes against the core concepts of FOSS, and that’s what matters, not really whether or not it is formally in the law.
FOSS 100% does NOT have a moral stance. once you asign morality to your software, its no longer FOSS. freedom as in beer means itt costs you no money, freedom as in speech means you can use it on a missle guidance system.
I did not take that implication from their post. I don’t think that we are arguing semantics. They are saying that licensing code as FOSS is a moral stance, and so is refusing to use llm code generation.
But it’s not all about the law. FOSS software also is a moral stance, of wanting code to be public and respected, and LLMs have been ignoring all that FOSS stands for.
Using LLM generated code goes against the core concepts of FOSS, and that’s what matters, not really whether or not it is formally in the law.
FOSS 100% does NOT have a moral stance. once you asign morality to your software, its no longer FOSS. freedom as in beer means itt costs you no money, freedom as in speech means you can use it on a missle guidance system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
The “free” is as in speech, which is a moral stance.
ok, we are arguing english language. so yes but i was addressing the commenters implied morality on use. which is not allowed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
I did not take that implication from their post. I don’t think that we are arguing semantics. They are saying that licensing code as FOSS is a moral stance, and so is refusing to use llm code generation.