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.
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.