[e3bc54b2]

Yes.

I always licensed my projects under GPL variants. That contract was broken by LLM vendors. So now I'm taking my toys and going home.

All my new projects are hosted on Sourcehut. I trust Drew when he says they are not letting LLM bots have at it.

Its not just the dev either. I'm no longer posting any content on blogs. Almost all of my other online interactions have moved to private channels and closed forums. I'm no longer giving my work away for free, unless you've passed the entry tests.

[msgodel]

I understand why people initially feel this way but the destruction of copyright is a realization of the end goal of the GPL, furthermore the way LLMs do it doesn't seem to impinge on the way it's used practically: preventing corporate administrators from mishandling source.

I wish pro-copy-left people could see this better. The future is brighter than you think.

[e3bc54b2]

LLMs did not destroy copyright. They inky destroyed copyright for the little guy. As I understand it, neither of the FAMANG have put their main codebase in training dataset. If I train an LLM on the leaked sources I'll get sued right down to my undies. But all the LLM vendors took my code, betrayed the license term about attribution/viral licensing of derived content, but I am told to get stuffed.

I am assuming you are commenting in good faith, but it does tingle my gaslight-senses.

[esseph]

Interested in how this turns out.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/ai-industry-horr...