[elric]

What a load of crock.

FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans. Some later licenses made the license less amenable for sharing with corporations because some authors didn't feel like they were being treated fairly. Some authors today have similar feelings about their code being used by Gen AI. It is perfectly fine for authors to want to place restrictions on how they want others to use their work.

> Step out of the FOSS swamp, step in to human dignity.

What is that even supposed to mean?

[brookst]

I’m old and I don’t recall FOSS being about truly free, truly open, just not for some categories of use.

In fact I seem to recall FOSS advocates denouncing licenses that put limits on who could use the software or for what purpose. This “it was always only for humans” take is new to me.

[JackFr]

> FOSS licenses were obviously written in the spirit of sharing with humans.

That may be true, but I don't think it's obvious. What don't I know about the history of OSS?

[MPSimmons]

>written in the spirit of sharing with humans.

Not humans who are using AI tools?

[jazz9k]

Developers gave their code out for free, but want to discriminate against people they don't like from using it in ways they dislike.

The 'spirit of free software' is bullshit. It's software authoritarianism disguised as a noble cause.

[ludamad]

Even so, what's wrong with this? They told you up front that they're going to discriminate. Students can use the code freely, businesses may struggle. People don't need to be fair.

[xbar]

Don't use it.