Not sure if you're fully over the context that openAI bought Astral - who "own" uv.
replyYep. Permissive licenses, "open source", it's all just free work for the worst corporations you can think.
replyIt's free work for anyone.
replySeems like the most cynical take on OSS possible.
replyLike anything good you do an evil person could benefit from - is the solution to never do any good?
The solution is to use AGPLv3.
replyI’m maybe daft but AGPLv3 doesnt prevent $Evilcorp from using it, they just need to share any modifications or forks they made?
replyAnd at this point, it appears running code through an LLM to translate it eliminates copyright (and thus the licence), so $Anycorp can use it.
replyOur stuff is AGPL3 licenced and if this present trend continues we might just switch to MIT so at least the little guys can take advantage of it the way the big guys can.
Only if they provide the software or software as a service. Then I suspect it's good enough if the modifications or forks made are shared internally if software is used only internally, but on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.
reply> if software is used only internally
replyInternal users are still users tho. They are entitled to see source code and license allows them to share it with the rest if of the world.
Employers might argue that such internal use and distribution would fall under the “exclusively under your behalf” clause in the GPLv3, which is inherited by the AGPLv3.
replyOh, I guess it would. Ignore me.
replyThis is the point. They can use and modify it, but they also have to share their modifications, i.e., help its development. Yet most megacorps never even touch this license.
replyNever let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. I suppose it works both ways here, but the specific end user is not why people make code available, it’s in the hope of improving things, even just the tiniest bit.
reply