Post B5S3LJTGRLpxXvOX6O by RichardJActon@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by RichardJActon@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nTcEKLwocNLylc by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-15T20:22:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
👀 … https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ …my colleague Denver Gingerich writes: newcomers' extensive reliance on LLM-backed generative AI is comparable to the Eternal September onslaught to USENET in 1993. I was on USENET extensively then; I confirm the disruption was indeed similar. I urge you to read his essay, think about it, & join Denver, me, & others at the following datetimes… $ date -d '2026-04-21 15:00 UTC' $ date -d '2026-04-28 23:00 UTC'…in https://bbb-new.sfconservancy.org/rooms/welcome-llm-gen-ai-users-to-foss/join#AI #LLM #OpenSource
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nUsDeOKcWFqGKO by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-15T23:57:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy I have to admit that I am pretty surprised by this post. Not in terms of being welcoming to newcomers, which is something I have advocated for and made the center of all of my FOSS work.However, the post says the following:> I encourage all of us in the FOSS community to welcome the new software developers who've adopted these tools, investigate their motivations, and seriously consider cautiously and carefully incorporating their workflows with ours.While the sentence which follows acknowledges that "seasoned software developers understand the benefits and limitations of LLM-assisted coding tools", there are two big things I expected at least acknowledged:- Many maintainers are facing *burnout* over the situation. However, I agree that addressing this in terms of norms is something we can consider- The biggest thing I am surprised to not see addressed at all is the licensing and copyright implications(cotd)
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nWB2nsz4YveoJE by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-16T00:00:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy The surprising thing about saying "seriously consider cautiously and carefully incorporating their workflows with ours" is that it doesn't address at all my *biggest* fear: the copyright status of LLM generated contributions seems currently unsettled.I know there's been assertions to the contrary floating around: the Supreme Court deferred to a lower court in the US. However that is not the same thing as the Supreme Court making a specific decision. And internationally, the copyright situation of output is even murkier... it will take a long time for this to settle.Does Conservancy not think this is the case? I would be surprised if so, but perhaps you all have an interpretation that I am not currently aware of.If there *is* concern, then we hit a serious risk: we may be seeing many contributions with legal status which has *yet to be determined* entering seasoned codebases. And this worries me a lot.
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nXJwYHhG6opQoq by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T00:58:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber I think maybe you missed https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/mar/04/scotus-deny-cert-dc-circuit-thaler-appeal-llm-ai/ where #SFC analyzed that situation?Also, follow @ai_cases & see the *firehose* of litigation on this & remember the “Work Based on the Program” issue under GPLv2 has still never been litigated directly but lots of cases about 100% proprietary software have bolstered GPL's strength.Big Content has legal battles with Big Tech on 100s of fronts rn. Yes, we're adrift on their sea, but the situation is not as dire as you imagine.#AI #LLW
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nYQ0TE8nVufmuO by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T13:49:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Continuing here, because it's the relevant subthread.I am sympathetic to choosing to narrow a topic. However, the post, in implying that we should start accepting partially AIgen contributions, inherently pulls in the topic of whether or not that is legally safe.Yes, I have read the previous Conservancy post about the existing cases. This partly contributes to my surprise and confusion about the post.Acknowledging that the plan is to have continued conversations and meetings about this, I still feel it is important to lay down my current concerns, even before such a meeting. I am leaving the "quality of contributions" and many other details out of here, and instead focusing on whether of not it is *safe to accept* contributions on copyright grounds at the moment, and what the implications of thinking on that are.(cotd)
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nZ0sG9dDMFvENE by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T13:52:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana So the question is: is it safe, from a legal perspective, given the current state of uncertainty of copyright of such contributions, to encourage accepting such contributions into repositories?Now clearly, many projects are: the Linux kernel most famously is, and their recent policy document says effectively, "You can contribute AI generated code, but the onus is on you whether or not you legally could have".Which is not very helpful of a handwave, I would say, since few contributors are equipped to assess such a thing. I've left myself and three others addressed in this portion of the thread, and all of us *have* done licensing work, and my suspicion is, *especially* based on what's been written, that none of us could confidently project where things are going to go.
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nZX8KDR4yJ0zei by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T13:58:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Part of the problem here is that the AI companies have set the stage themselves. Their presumption is that it's fine to absorb effectively all open and "indie" content, and that this is entirely fair to pull into a model without any legal implications, whereas potentially yes, you may need to "license" something that looks like a Disney character. In the land of code, I also sense that Microsoft is perfectly fine with the idea that you can "copyright launder" a codebase from the GPL to perhaps the public domain, but if someone did that to their own leaked source code, they would be very upset.Meanwhile, a friend of mine who works in films has said that he keeps hearing rumors that OpenAI would like a cut of stuff made with their stuff. We should presume tthat true.Regardless, I'm sure everyone on this thread wants an *equitable* situation for proprietary and FOSS licensing. I'll expand on that more in a moment though.
(DIR) Post #B5Q7na4SKK5gdebbay by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:01:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
However, it's not actually the laundering angle I am concerned with here entirely, it's whether we're turning FOSS codebases into potential legal toxic waste dumps that we will have a hell of a time cleaning up later.The previous Conservancy post, which @bkuhn linked upthread, indicates that Conservancy does indeed consider the matter unsettled.Current LLMs wouldn't "default to copyleft", since they also include all-rights-reserved mixed in there. If the result of output of these systems is a slurry of inputs which carry their licensing somehow, their default licensing output situation is one of a hazard.I note that @bkuhn and @ossguy seem to be hinting at hoping a "copyleft based LLM" with all-copyleft output it a winning scenario. I'm going to state plainly: I believe that's an impossible outcome.@richardfontana
(DIR) Post #B5Q7ncGEBWhBQk82Do by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T00:16:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/5) [ Meta-info to start the thread. Here and the posts that follow reply to lots of people's comments (from various threads) together here. Can we consolidate this conversation into this single thread to discuss https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ ? ]Cc: @wwahammy @silverwizard @mjw @cwebber @josh @jamey @mason @spencer @rootwyrm @drwho @mmu_man @mathieui @beeoproblem#LLM #AI #OpenSource #FOSS #SoftwareFreedom
(DIR) Post #B5Q7ndapEQlXYulzxw by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-16T00:03:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy There are other things I am less worried about. genAI tools used to probe for software vulnerabilities does not lead to contributions of unknown status. Same for using LLMs to explore a codebase. However, there isn't any distinction made in the post, only a "seriously consider cautiously and carefully incorporating their workflows with ours".Does this mean Conservancy currently believes that the matter of genAI output by contemporary LLM tools is a settled matter, in terms of either a) being fully in the public domain or b) being the copyright status of the "prompter"?
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nkWTT0Rd3Rn7ei by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T00:40:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/5) … Proprietary #LLM-backed gen #AI systems' *users* aren't criminals! They're just users of proprietary systems & some of them want to engage positively with FOSS.Years ago, I supported Homebrew's membership at #SFC despite their *primary* goal of improving #Apple products with #FOSS. It make me a bit 🤢, but — historically — forming alliances with proprietary software enthusiasts who mean well & are #FOSS-curious is why our community is resilient.Cc: @wwahammy @silverwizard @cwebber
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nkbRAYPlIq75OK by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T00:19:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/5) … In https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ ,Denver's key points are: we *have* to (a) be open to *listening* to people who want to contribute #FOSS with #LLM-backed generative #AI systems, & (b) work collaboratively on a *plan* of how we can solve the current crisis.Nothing ever got done politically that was good when both sides become more entrenched, refuse to even concede the other side has some valid points, & each say the other is the Enemy. … Cc: @wwahammy @silverwizard @cwebber #OpenSource
(DIR) Post #B5Q7nl9p6hv71UCXzM by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T00:48:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(4/5)…It's easy to forget that the enemy to software freedom is *not* proprietary systems' *users*, rather those who *sell* such systems *for profit*. #LLM-backed gen-#AI proprietary systems are simply the latest tech fad (like, say, Web 2.0 & AJAX).@karen & I keynoted 2x at #FOSDEM & 1x at LCA about the importance of — as social workers say — “meeting people where they are”:https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/interviews/bradley-m-kuhn-karen-sandler/https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/full_software_freedom/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n55WClalwHohttps://archive.fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/open_source_won/Cc: @silverwizard @josh
(DIR) Post #B5QM8KGjfiYd4M8SoK by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:03:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Rather than focus on the GPL, let's choose a different copyleft license. In fact, let's choose a gradient of licenses.- CC0's public domain declaration w/ minimal fallback license- CC BY- CC BY-SAImagine for a moment an LLM trained entirely on the above three licenses, and then one that's CC BY and CC0, and then one that's just CC0.Let's look at both extremes and then we'll find out the real dangers come from observing the middle.
(DIR) Post #B5QM8LMRbyiaSLoXLc by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:07:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana First let's imagine the only-CC0 based LLM.I would fully agree that no matter the law and legal case law passed and established, the CC0 based input LLM is clearly effectively in the public domain, or like CC0 itself, equivalent to it. This one is relatively simple.Let's make things more complicated.
(DIR) Post #B5QM8MQNepSdkqfC7c by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:09:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Regarding the one containing CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA, the situation is more uncertain and seems highly affected by legal outcomes in upcoming law and cases to be set. There is the possibility that indeed, the LLM is considered a slurry of inputs and this is legally acceptable, and effectively any output which is not verbatim of its inputs in some way is effectively under the public domain.Now, of course, the problem is that we don't have to just worry about the US, we have to worry *internationally*. When considered from this angle, that FOSS is an international endeavour, this hope that things are in the public domain feels a lot dicier.The assumption is that then this effectively leads to the output being under the terms of CC BY-SA. This is fine, great even, right?! Because effectively everything is share-alike (Bradley I don't wanna get into whether BY-SA is copyleft or something weaker). We slap CC BY-SA on the output, it's fine. Right??????
(DIR) Post #B5QM8NEidfj8GyDOaG by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:12:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Except, I actually believe this scenario isn't legally viable. And it's easier to understand if we scale back to the middle case.Let's now look at the LLM trained on CC0 and CC BY. Because it's the BY aspect that makes everything complicated.There is *NO WAY* in current LLM technology, nor I believe from studying how neural networks work, any viable computationally performant LLM, that they can track provenance. The BY clause cannot be upheld.This isn't a theoretical concern for me; someone built another vibecoded Scheme-to-WASM-GC compiler that looks an awful lot like Spritely's own Hoot compiler in places. They didn't attribute us. They probably didn't know. But like many FOSS licenses, Apache v2 does require certain levels of attribution to be upheld. Most FOSS projects do.You can't uphold the CC BY requirement, as far as I can tell.
(DIR) Post #B5QM8O5tRyGGvt5rSy by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:14:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Now here is a counter-argument: how do people attribute Wikipedia? They generally just attribute Wikipedia! And people seem to be mostly fine with this.It feels fine, when you were a contributor to the Wikipedia project.It feels a lot less fine when you are a contributor to a specific project, to have everything just sucked up into "the generic LLM". Claude did it! Claude did it all by itself.
(DIR) Post #B5QM8P2NwV37rISZdY by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:16:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana If we are pushing for an *equitable* scenario for copyright output, there is only one "good outcome" in terms of copyright, and that is that everything is effectively in the public domain. The dream of having a "copyleft LLM" doesn't work.And even if it did, there are several problems:- Nobody is using that *now*, and contributors are facing contributions *now*, and there is legal uncertainty about accepting those contributions *right now*.- It is unlikely that the "copyleft LLM" would be very useful. The way people use these tools is conversational in a way that requires them to effectively have to be trained on the entire internet to be functional. Not just copyleft codebases.The copyleft LLM dream is a joke.
(DIR) Post #B5QM8Pnt5t2yEcgVg8 by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:18:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I say "good outcome", and I'm not saying it's an outcome I want, because "what I want" is pretty complicated here. I'm saying, it's the only one where there is the possibility of legal output from these tools that can safely be incorporated into FOSS projects *at all* that is *equitable* for both FOSS and proprietary situations.And yup, unfortunately, that would mean copyright-laundering of FOSS codebases through LLMs would be possible to strip copyleft.It would also mean the same for proprietary codebases.Frankly I think it would kind of rule if we stabbed copyright in the gut that badly, but there's so much vested interest from various copyright holding corporations, I don't think we're likely to get that. Do you?
(DIR) Post #B5QM8QhBmHHb08YfsO by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-18T14:21:48Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana So let me summarize:- Without knowing the legal status of accepting LLM contributions, we're potentially polluting our codebases with stuff that we are going to have a HELL of a time cleaning up later- The idea of a copyleft-only LLM is a joke and we should not rely on it- We really only have two realistic scenarios: either FOSS projects cannot accept LLM based contributions legally from an international perspective, or everything is effectively in the public domain as outputted from these machines, but at least in the latter scenario we get to weaken copyright for everyone.That's leaving out a lot of other considerations about LLMs and the ethics of using them, which I think most of the other replies were focused on, I largely focused on the copyright implications aspects in this subthread. Because yes, I agree, it can be important to focus a conversation.But we can't ignore this right now.We're putting FOSS codebases at risk.
(DIR) Post #B5QM8RO5Cnat9Acvjc by LordCaramac@discordian.social
2026-04-18T14:28:38Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I think we should just destroy copyright entirely and expand the public domain to contain everything that has ever been published. Intellectual property was a very bad idea in the first place IMHO.
(DIR) Post #B5QMxz2HrRAOH50eTg by richardfontana@mastodon.social
2026-04-18T16:40:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber copyleft-only LLM is nonsensical , agreed @bkuhn @ossguy
(DIR) Post #B5S3LJTGRLpxXvOX6O by RichardJActon@fosstodon.org
2026-04-18T19:26:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I'd don't see a great way out of the copyright stripping conclusions for them without changes to the law. As I understand their defense for training on copyrighted materials - it's predicated on the models being a "transformative" and not competing directly with the original works in the market. The models themselves don't compete with the training material only their outputs do - and the LLM companies want any liability for that to be on users not them.
(DIR) Post #B5S3LKTehNkCfQaMLo by RichardJActon@fosstodon.org
2026-04-18T19:31:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Under this view it doesn't matter how the training data was licensed as it's a fair use defense. The outputs being uncopyrightable / effectively public domain allows people to claim they wrote it when it's convenient and they want to be able to copyright it as it's hard to prove if it was AI generated or human authored. And simultaneously to claim that it was the output of and LLM when they want to strip inconvenient licensing terms.
(DIR) Post #B5S3LL8QFoM0hreutU by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-18T22:32:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@RichardJActon The copyleft-ish hack I propose is *we* (FOSS community) assume that any output of an LLM-backed genAI system *is* copylefted (since we are pretty sure all such systems — at least those designed for software development assist — have been trained on copylefted codebases).Then, we copyleft any work that comes out of the system.The only threat is proprietary software in the training set, & the industry can't abide enforcing *that*!@cwebber @ossguy @richardfontana @evan@kees
(DIR) Post #B5S3LLx7DKu5F5NOuO by richardfontana@mastodon.social
2026-04-19T00:32:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn not sure I understand the hack. Is the hack a persuasive argument to convince FOSS community to copyleft LLM output? @RichardJActon @cwebber @ossguy @evan @kees
(DIR) Post #B5S3LMXz0GOV5QcqNE by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-19T04:30:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@richardfontanaIt's solved with a new copyleft-next clause I have not pitched you yet.Remember how I keep telling we need to talk every week? 🤣 @RichardJActon @cwebber @ossguy @evan @kees
(DIR) Post #B5S3LN4b30TwiZstCy by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-19T12:21:58Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @richardfontana @RichardJActon @ossguy @evan @kees I presume a new copyleft-next clause would result in something that's GPL-incompatible if it's a new restriction though, right?If that's true, wouldn't it result in a mix of incompatible copyleft licenses combined into the output? Or do you have a plan on how to deal with this?
(DIR) Post #B5SO0oCR5wxTnzaUDI by sjn@chaos.social
2026-04-15T21:18:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn ITYM? $ date -d '2026-04-21 15:00 UTC' $ date -d '2026-04-28 23:00 UTC'
(DIR) Post #B5SO0p0Q66wOJ0yP7g by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-15T23:39:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sjn Corrected. Since the post Denver wrote talked about November *2025*, I had 2025 on the brain when I posted.I confirm that time travel is *not* required to attend these public fora.
(DIR) Post #B5SOIafy79N34hsdF2 by silverwizard@convenient.email
2026-04-16T00:50:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @karen @josh I think we need to separate 'the people using it are bad" from "commit from people using it are bad".There's a huge difference, and no one is claiming the first
(DIR) Post #B5SOIbrhh0LslONWAi by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T00:59:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@silverwizard Nor does @ossguy claim in his post that “slop commits from people #LLM-backed gen #AI are good”. I think people are reading it as if he said it, but he didn't.He's putting out an olive branch to people who have been lambasted by the #FOSS community for months. Maybe they'll take it, maybe they won't.But peaceful negotiation is better than a protracted, hateful argument.Cc: @karen @josh
(DIR) Post #B5SOIcjaSfSBSVaY9w by silverwizard@convenient.email
2026-04-16T01:06:11Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @karen @josh @ossguy I think the problem is one of not really looking at the conversation as it's happening. It's why my post was focused on a car analogy. Even if those people have good intention, the tools they're bringing in destroy the community.I think that the problem is that the idea of not accepting people who are using the tools feels like an attempt to smuggle in the tools. If someone has chosen to use claude code for a while and now wants to contribute helpfully - fine. But how many of those people are there? Is there a cohort of LLM users who want to learn coding skills? Or are they wanting to *contribute* using their *LLM skills*?I think Denver doesn't prove the existence of the cohort so is being read as attempting to defend something else.
(DIR) Post #B5SOO4jxlMaVlYMcfg by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T01:14:39Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@wwahammy I have always been against calling violation of a copyleft license a criminal offense. It's too harsh & it's wrong. I realize the DMCA might technically make it true, but the DMCA is a bad law & should be repealed.I never pegged you as a fan of the criminal penalties under DMCA, but you're correct that maybe the very few people who have attempted copyright-washing with LLM's may have violated those DMCA terms.But I still think it should be a civil, not criminal, legal matter.
(DIR) Post #B5SOcSR0StR3J4M4xs by mathieui@piaille.fr
2026-04-16T07:19:13Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber There seems to be some oversimplification happening here; I don't think people using LLMs are the enemy but as @silverwizard said by analogy (assuming I have been mentioned for the retoot, which I understand but find a bit inquisitive BTW), I do think LLMs are the perfect medium for destroying free software and free software communities (let alone the rest of the world).It is easy to say that we should not be entrenched, but my main issue with this position is that there is no form of "meeting in the middle" that works here, apart from caving in. (continued)
(DIR) Post #B5SOcaLH45bTpbjc8m by mathieui@piaille.fr
2026-04-16T07:27:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard I do not want to read LLM output, full stop. There are people who want to me to read it. What can I compromise here?I do not want to demonize LLM users, as some want to genuinely contribute and hope to improve the software. But their red line is that they want to use their LLM to do so, as they are (usually) "having so much fun with it doing previously impossible stuff". The truth is that nobody wants to discuss the topic, as everyone is getting tired of this shit, which is why adding a notice stating that the project rejects any LLM-tainted contributions is probably the best to avoid wasting everyone's time.
(DIR) Post #B5SOlBLNNTNsuGsinY by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-16T15:24:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mathieuiI agree FOSS projects should make their own policies. Some will (& should!) have a zero-tolerance abstinence policy on any contribution that has even been slightly interacted with any LLM-backed generative AI systems.Yet, even among SFC projects, some asked us to help them create a more nuanced policy.Should we just kick those projects out of SFC, or have a nuanced, humans-only conversation?It's ok if you do not want to join that, but we'd also be glad to have you.Cc: @tito @ossguy
(DIR) Post #B5SOlCEK5BKvegabRY by lumi@snug.moe
2026-04-16T15:29:30.135Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @mathieui @tito @ossguy i think it is good to have a nuanced conversation, but still be stern in that this unethical technology will not be allowed. the ethical issues of it are just too big, it would almost be as bad as allowing proprietary software in, i would sayeducation is important, and it is important to first educate and give some time before making a decision, but still be stern about it, as this is a deep ethical issue where we should be having a zero-tolerancezero-tolerance here would mean not allowing the project to endorse or use any genai. if usage of it is snuck in, try and revert it to the best ability possible. if it was used before, do the same. but having some genai commits in is not that important, to meof course, mistakes may be made. we should not be scrutinizing commits very heavily and going on witch hunts. but genai usage, for code, assets, writing, docs and anything else, must not be allowedwhat's important to me is the stance of the project going forward. to be against it completely
(DIR) Post #B5SPBB4R13efaXLxC4 by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2026-04-19T00:16:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dalias Have you seen attribution lawsuits anywhere in the 50 years of the BSD license?Of course, you have a point. But we're facing possible compulsory licensing if we don't improve our strategy. We may do the wrong thing, & if a BSD-licensed project wants to burn it down & sue a copylefted project for non-attribution infringement, let's deal with that when it comes.& I'm speaking as one of the few who has actually been threatened with such a lawsuit.@cwebber @zacchiro @richardfontana
(DIR) Post #B5SPBD5vUU2Jrk4AnQ by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-19T01:40:22Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @dalias @zacchiro @richardfontana I don't have them on hand, but I remember attribution enforcement with CC BY to be pretty common, particularly making newspapers update their use of "stock photo" style headers with CC BY licensed photos. I don't remember, off hand, escalation in enforcement to a court case (I feel like there may have been, but usually when attribution requirements are pointed out, people simply comply pretty quickly, since it's not hard to comply with and rarely against interests... LLMs are a change there, since there's not really a way to do so)
(DIR) Post #B5SPBLcTnKpUJ1MHeC by cwebber@social.coop
2026-04-19T01:43:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @dalias @zacchiro @richardfontana (As in, I remember that being common with CC BY and newspapers, when I was working at Creative Commons)