[yetihehe]

> try to be more ethical with their LLM usage

"Use local model" vs "Use top tier nonlocal model" is bad vs bad when library provider asks for "do not use any model". It's asking the wrong question and diluting moral stance, so please don't use morality to narrow the issue.

[Ukv]

> when library provider asks for "do not use any model"

To my understanding the stance was only really communicated after/because of this ticket ("For everyone listening: I added explicit disclosure of how output to stdout has changed"), and probably still isn't something that most downstream users are going to see.

In general I'm not too sure about a project that is using, and has accepted contributions under, a Free software license trying to then restrict what tools you can use. To me that seems largely against the principle of a Free license. You could get contributors' permission to relicense their work to a non-Free license if you wanted to restrict the tools that users of the library can use.

[Tiberium]

Maybe I was a bit unclear in my post, sorry, I didn't mean that local LLMs were any less/more ethical, I meant that the people who prefer local LLMs over proprietary cloud ones sometimes cite ethics/etc as their reason.

[yetihehe]

Ahh, thanks for clarification, after rereading I still can't see your original post in that way.

[gchamonlive]

It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use. Now it's LLMs and since this is a divisive topic because of the layoffs and intellectual properterty theft used to train the model people side with the maintainer. Just imagine, what if instead of LLM the author made their libs erase your project if you used NVidia? Sure NVidia is a shitty company with shitty anti-consumer practices, but why should the consumer be penalized? If I want to use qwen3.6 locally in my inference rig to crunch code I'm totally in my right. This is just childish.

[torben-friis]

I don't see it as fundamentally different to licences dictating personal vs commercial use, requiring attribution, etc.

People share their intellectual property however they see fit.

That's speaking about the general principle, I'm not discussing the specific actions taken by the link's author.

[gchamonlive]

I don't think in principle it applies either. Licenses are there to manage distribution and ownership not tech stack.

[skeledrew]

Legally, a license is applicable in any way the provider of the item with the license deems it to be. Unless there's a law/ruling in a relevant jurisdiction that explicitly states otherwise.

[gchamonlive]

"by using this lib you agree to give up your firstborn child to adoption". In any jurisdiction do we have to have an explicit law against sending your child to adoption? Because you can't make it illegal for people to put children to adoption, this is regular practice, so a license could enforce this?

[yetihehe]

If someone gives you conditions to which you don't agree, maybe don't use that lib?

Do you think you have some moral right to use the library and violate conditions to which you do not agree? Get another library or write your own.

[skeledrew]

It can try, because you agreed by using the software. And if the owner/maintained tries, it'll be up to the lawyers and judge(s) to determine the way forward. Maybe it'll be found to be too onerous a request or something. But don't push the system; it might push back in a way that has repercussions for decades to come.