With the minimal amount of work added the combined work can now have added restrictions. They’re pushover licenses.

Devs are free to choose whatever license they want but in the pathfinding problem of interacting with others then “protecting the source” is the wrong target node. Copyleft is a tool to help people.

That is what I would mean by “open source” but I can’t blame the uninitiated from thinking it means something else. Consider every-day usage of the word “open” - an open door could be fully open, just have a small gap or even shut but unlocked (“come in, the door is open”). A well-meaning developer could think Unreal engine is open source because they can see the source code (the code is “open” to them). Words don’t have innate definitions, they have usages.

The intent of copyleft is to ensure freedoms for the recipients of derivatives of your works. In software that means the users of forks. Copyleft restricts you to the same license (or a compatible one) to prevent you adding more restrictions. ““More permissive”” software licenses can be redistributed with the same license but often it’s a more restrictive license (e.g. MIT -> proprietary).

Open source is just that

“Open” is an unspecific, a range of openness from not redistributable to (libre) free software.

own forever

Ownership implies control - being able to maintain/repair, modify or even resell.

To be in control of software you need access to it’s source code, and have the right to share changes with others.

Although Plex is running on your server it isn’t there to do what you want… unless Plex’s real owner permits it.

That’s how proprietary software works.

What does Tok mean here?

Was that a warning or a threat from Kissinger?

• Humans write code
• Humans make mistakes

∴ Humans write bad code

I’ve not seen those (may not be in my country). What do the concrete walls stop, explosions?

Doesn’t appear so but there is that potential in a future update as they’re in control of what the software actually does. If data is indeed stored in plain text files then hopefully an alternative software could be made to display that data.

Batteries and liquid fuel are both hazardous in terms of catching fire, do you mean something else?

Even the most comfortable prison is still a prison - Captain Picard, TNG

HP nickel and dime their printer customers… for this?

I’m unsure that using complicated algebra to regurgitate parts of people’s works is different from just copying it. Perhaps you could say a human brain learning how to code is just regurgitating the code it’s had as an input before, but intuition says directly copying is somehow different.

I add copyleft licenses to code to ensure the code cannot be legally copied into proprietary software, for moral beliefs. If the output of a LLM was free software and copyleft (as would be the input) then perhaps that would be fine. Github probably has some complicated legalese that says by uploading it you permit them to use it for LLMs - I’d want that to be legally voided.

Oh, my bad.

Money to live is an important point but open source is still preferable to proprietary as any company shenanigans can be found, removed and the new version shared legally.

A universal basic income would allow software authors to more easily work on less profitable projects.

The harm this time is indeed less, but the potential for harm is still the same as Meta. There is always the temptation to use power over your SAS users for your own gain. Maybe one day they’re a bigger company who think ‘you know what, maybe it’s better for the company that our users not swear’. Either way lets hope for libre, self-hosted alternatives.

May be a good idea to include that update/correction in your prior post.

If only people would do that, but I bet that advice is just like telling an overweight person to stop eating.