[ranger_danger]

I should not have paraphrased... it says "TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT RESTRICTION".

The way I interpret that is that redistributing cannot be restricted either, which wouldn't work for say, the GPL, as far as I understand it.

[9dev]

That indeed seems to rule out most open source licenses actually; one or another restriction, like including the license or not modify the license, will be in conflict. I’m pretty sure this sloppiness in phrasing is on purpose.

[em-bee]

that's a very cynic take. it's the same as the tiring old argument that the GPL is not free, because true freedom should allow you to do whatever you want. but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy.

if you take the argument to the extreme then only public domain code would be exempt. clearly the lawmakers are aware of open source and free software licenses and would not make a stupid blunder to only allow public domain operating systems which nobody is using, if they even exist.

the license can't be modified anyways, that's a feature of copyright. a license may allow combination with code that has a different license, but the original code is still under the original license. so if i build a program that includes MIT or BSD code and GPL code, then the combined result is under the GPL, but the original MIT code is still MIT or BSD. both licenses require that the license notice may not be removed. i can rip out the GPL code and distribute the rest under MIT again. if it was possible to actually modify the license then i could not do that.

[9dev]

It may be cynical, but I see a clear pathway for a lawyer to argue that a specific piece of software is not exempt, because its license doesn't actually permit you to modify the source without restrictions, when there are specific restrictions referring to a file that is distributed as part of the software.

[margalabargala]

> but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy

Will an LLM drop capitals and write all lowercase if you ask it to or does it require postprocessing?

The writing style reminds me of the people in college who would fake an English accent.

Addressing the actual comment, "it's anarchy not freedom" isn't really meaningful when talking about software modification instead of societal governance. Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?

[em-bee]

what are you implying here? take a look at my posting history. i have been writing like this since before LLMs existed. also i am not an english native, but i lived in various english speaking countries with very diverse accents for many years as well as using english as the main language for more than two decades. that's bound to create a weird mixture of accents, especially for a non-native speaker who doesn't have the grounding of a native accent. but even in my native language i grew up in areas with very different accents or dialects, so that i don't even have a native accent in my own language.

Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?

because anarchy allows everyone to do hat they want, which means it does not offer protection for people who can't protect themselves.

the point of the GPL is to protect the user, to prevent the developer from locking the user in, it is not to give freedom to the developer. BSD/MIT licenses don't have that protection. no protection for the user equals anarchy to me.

[margalabargala]

> LLM

> GPL

> BSD/MIT

Aha, your shift key does work! Now that you've found it we can work on using it when sentences start.

I find your anarchy analogy unconvincing. It seems like you're conflating the existence of permissive licences, with a lack of a legal obligation to use the GPL. If anarchy exists rather than user protection, it's in the ability to choose a non-GPL license altogether.

[em-bee]

i just had the all lowercase discussion (i wasn't even the reason it started) so i am just going to refer you to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47889553 (that link is a top level comment responding to the article)

you're conflating the existence of permissive licenses, with a lack of a legal obligation to use the GPL

well, the interpretation of 9dev creates a legal preference for public domain software. so there is that. but that aside, i don't get your reading, how am i conflating anything. i am making an analogy. permissive licenses enable a state or behavior that is comparable to anarchy, in that there is no protection for anyone, whereas the GPL has a strong focus on user protection. if we want to stretch the analogy even further, the GPL could be compared to socialism. oh, and binary only distribution is capitalism. (ok. i'll stop now ;-)

what you are describing is something different entirely. the original developer of course has the freedom to set the rules for his software. what i am talking about in my analogy, is how that choice affects the environment in which their software gets used and distributed, which is either like anarchy or like socialism (or anything in between).