[Devasta]

This is unironically why the AGPL3 is the best license. No need to worry about "virality" or derivative works or any of that, just set it and forget it. On top of that, corporations will avoid you like the plague, ensuring that your audience is other AGPL3 users.

[arikrahman]

I am happy with the network solution AGPL provides on top of GPL. I think a new AGPL version needs to come out that addresses rewriting codebases with AI and claiming new original work.

[FinnLobsien]

How would you enforce that? I'm genuinely curious. It's nearly impossible to conclusively prove someone rewrote your codebase with AI.

[arikrahman]

It's enforcement through deterrent. Without a change, there is no case to be held. With AI refactor clause, companies become subject to subpoenas, witnesses subject to perjury, reputations subject to scrutiny. Just as the same as any license affords protections than without them.

[Raed667]

Unless they proudly claim it as they seem so keen to do

[slopinthebag]

Plenty of rules and laws exist in which enforcement is difficult, and nonetheless exist. I think it’s enough to make some legal departments say no, and there are also companies stupid enough to brag about it regardless if it breaks the law.

[dovesky]

I don't think you can, which is also why Open Source is effectively dead thanks to AI.

[0xbadcafebee]

Open Source is a movement of people who want to voluntarily collaborate on and share software. As long as there are people who want to do that, it will continue. I don't see anyone suddenly stopping doing that just because AI exists. Lots of open source projects are banning AI contributions, yet they're chugging along just as before.

Honestly I think we're going to see a lot less AI-written code in the future, and more AI-assistance (PR reviews, documentation, security scans, scaffolding, brainstorming, test suites, etc). Example: to ship one feature for my open source project with a collaborator, we went back and forth for a month to agree on the change, test it, approve it, merge it. The code was pretty tiny. We could get more contributions faster if AI can help us tighten up that lifecycle.

[FinnLobsien]

Yeah I agree. I think whether we see more or less AI-written code is very much down to where.

Adding a new filter option for in-product analytics (assuming that data is being captured) is something AI can do reasonably well.

But things like “how should our orchestration layer be architected” isn’t a question of execution, so AI won’t be much use.

[abc42]

As long as open source projects avoid using AI, surely? Why wouldn't they be able to reap the benefits also?

[avaer]

> I think a new AGPL version needs to come out that addresses rewriting codebases with AI and claiming new original work.

I agree.

In the current state of OSS, if you AGPL something meaningful, someone else will re-slopfactor into MIT and take the credit, while being glorified for providing a more "open" alternative.

Or they just ask the AI to port your AGPL code into their proprietary codebase and not tell anyone.

Enforcement of license violations in the age of AI needs a 180.

[embedding-shape]

I've used MIT almost exclusively for anything I've published, under multiple identities, and seems to work fine too. What benefit would AGPL3 give me over MIT, in terms of avoiding burnout? So far, saying "No" or not working for free for companies, been working fine as an approach so far, but always open to hearing even better approaches.

[hilariously]

It prevents the No from ever materializing because almost no one wants to use your code to build on top of.

[embedding-shape]

How am I supposed to practice saying "No" in low-stakes situations then? :|

[hilariously]

I would tell you but I am practicing right now.

[greenavocado]

There's also the MIT+NIRREG (misspelling intentional) license

plusnirreg.com (misspelling intentional) is the home page of the license

It's also AGPL compatible!

> Why?

By including the word "NXXXXXX" in a LICENSE file that must be distributed with the software you will ensure:

The software will not be used or hosted by western corporations that promote censorship

The software will not be used or hosted by compromised individuals that promote censorship

Users of the software will be immune to attacks that would result in censorship of others