[tarkin2]

Get people hooked, tell them spending time coding is no longer needed, let their skills deteriorate, tell them they need cough up for a licence to do their job

Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free

A tax to do their job that developers are jumping at the chance to pay

Everybody's finally realising that node dependencies are a threat, but letting these AI companies gatekeep the industry is a bandwagon people are scrambling towards

[witx]

> Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free.

Yes this makes me sad behound explanation. Specially when I see open source developers happily using these tools. These companies stole your, free, hard work and charge you a subscription!! Not to speak about them torrenting books and (most likely) training on private repos.

This and devs paying a subscription to use a tool that is marketed as trying to replace them.

I had 150$ monthly budget thatbI used for various open source projects and I've cut that entirelly.

[simonw]

> These companies stole your, free, hard work and charge you a subscription!!

In case you weren't aware, Anthropic, OpenAI and GitHub Copilot all have programs that provide access to open source maintainers for free:

GitHub: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/copilot-on-github...

Anthropic: https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss

OpenAI: https://developers.openai.com/community/codex-for-oss

[andriy_koval]

Was there comprehensive survey amongst maintainers that its fair price for decades of hard work?

[majora2007]

I don't get what you're saying. You're frustrated that Open Source projects were used to build these AIs and that OS devs (or devs in general) are paying to use AI.

Then you say you had money that you used to donate(?) to OS and have cut that because of the frustration?

Open source just means sharing the source code for people to learn off or have the ability to customize on their own. I don't think there is any need to be frustrated about that (now if it was copyright/private of course).

[witx]

> Open source just means sharing the source code for people to learn off or have the ability to customize on their own.

Yes people, not corporations. The point is there a licenses to be respected that weren't.

[lkjdsklf]

Model training pretty clearly falls under fair use.

We could fix that, but it requires a political will to change the law.

[witx]

If you look carefully model training is a very good relicensing exercise of your code

[bingaweek]

This has not been determined in courts and your willingness to speak so confidently about it speaks volumes.

[simonw]

The closest we've come to a court decision on this so far has been the Anthropic case, which did indeed find that training on unlicensed data falls under fair use: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25982181-authors-v-a...

> To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies.

[paganel]

> Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free

That's also caused by some very smart (even brilliant) developers (you can see many of them in this very thread) choosing to be oblivious about all this and bury us all under, hoping that they'll be among the last ones to go. Writing this down I realise that they maybe aren't all that smart.