Hi Maxim, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis:
> Similar to others, I dislike the "we'll tell you how to run your shop, > in the sake of saving humanity, nothing less" talking point. It comes > off as awfully lordly to my ears, which is why I'd like to narrow it > down to just the useful, bare minimum parts. How would you phrase rules #1 and #2? >> In fact, as it stands, fully vibe-coded software like Claude’s C >> Compiler cannot be considered free software; this will probably be >> clarified one way or another in the various jurisdictions, but that’s >> where we are today. > > "cannot be considered free software" is preposterous, no? It’s a fact that the copyright situation of LLM output is unclear (see “Motivation”, which contains links to relevant documents). If it contains parts of its input data verbatim, then that license applies; if it’s a translation from one language to another, then presumably the original license applies; in other cases, we don’t know. Again, this will probably change in the future, but that’s where we are. > Which sources back such claims (that they cannot be considered free > software) ? I hope this is clear now. > I'd also prefer not advertising these packages by avoiding mentioning > them by name or URL, which seems unnecessary to me. The goal of the examples was to materialize the line drawn between, say, Linux and Python (which may not be excluded under this “majority of the code” rule in the foreseeable future) and fully vibe-coded software. Ludo’.
