I can read your code, learn from it, and create my own code with the knowledge gained from your code without violating an OSS license.

Why is Clean-room design a thing then?

You can’t “train” on code you haven’t copied. That is kind of obvious, right? So did they have the right to copy and then reproduce the work without attribution?

Training proprietary LLMs on open source code is shitty, rent-seeking behavior, but not really a unique development, and certainly not something that undermines the core value of open source.

Destroying “share alike” doesn’t undermine the core value of open source? What IS the core value?

That’s the TIME magazine cover, buddy.

Copyleft software isn’t supposed to just be repackaged as proprietary, though. Permissive licenses, sure - but people know what they were signing up for (presumably) there.

Do you understand how free software works? Did you read the post? I’d love to clarify, but I’m not going to rewrite the article.

I wonder if the whole purpose of promotion of FOSS by big companies was, long-term, this. Finding some way to abuse openness and collect for free the resource that becomes digital oil in the next stage, but only for those who own the foundries - computing resources for ML, that is.

Even if it wasn’t, it seems that they are perfectly fine with it now.

Hold onto this comment, I may need to delete this post and repost depending on what the developer here recommends. I definitely want to respond here.

Should I delete and repost?

Love the attention you give the community - we all appreciate it. 😃

Totally, but the Disney employees (or the contractors) got paid. I think it is particularly galling when the piracy happens to people who are working for free.

It transforms the contribution to no longer be “share alike”.

Might be a federation thing?

Here’s the link: https://www.quippd.com/writing/2025/12/17/AIs-unpaid-debt-how-llm-scrapers-destroy-the-social-contract-of-open-source.html

Not disagreeing with you - just saying that the legal underpinnings of open source are the copyright regime.

Copyright isn’t awesome, it is useful. The whole basis of open source is built on the concept of copyright (copyleft), so alignment with copyright isn’t “sudden”, it is fundamental.

So what is that, a build of Chromium with no Vivaldi features? What is the point exactly? I can download Chromium by itself already. I’ll even get edit history, unlike the big tarball that Vivaldi gives me.

There are many open source licenses. Being closed source isn’t one of them.

Wanna show me the free version of Vivaldi?

Open source is like being pregnant - you either are are you aren’t. Vivaldi isn’t.

But also not open source.