[vintagedave]

Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing.

And if anything can be reimplemented and there’s no value in the source any more, just the spec or tests, there’s no public-interest reason for any restriction other than completely free, in the GPL sense.

[Hamuko]

>Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing.

It doesn't if Dan Blanchard spends some tokens on it and then licenses the output as MIT.

[jmalicki]

Who are you talking about? I can't find reference to this person.

[kccqzy]

He is the maintainer of chardet. The main topic of the article is the whole LGPL to MIT rewrite and relicense done by this person.

https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0

[Aeolun]

I think the “I maintained this thing for 12 years” weighs a lot heavier than the “and then I even went through the trouble of reimplementing it” before changing it to a license that is more open. Seriously…

[badc0ffee]

There were two other posts about this today on the HN front page:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47257803

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177

[raincole]

I highly recommend read the post in question first before commenting.

[vintagedave]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. I read it in full. If you're referring to the author dismissing GPL, my comment is, I think in converse they have missed something and the GPL is the best license, for the reasons I noted.

[formerly_proven]

> Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing.

LLM companies and increasingly courts view LLM training as fair use, so copyright licensing does not enter the picture.