Can you explain how they might be more beneficial than simply visiting the link and clicking back if it isn’t what you wanted? Sincerely curious.

The output of the LLM can be incorporated into copyrighted material and is copyright free. I never claimed that the copyright on the original work was lost.

That is absolutely not true. It doesn’t remove the copyright from the original work and no court has ruled as such.

Sorry, I just got around to this message. That is the idea of the provenance – clearly, the canonical work is copyright. It is the version that has been stripped of its provenance via the LLM that no longer retains its copyright (because as I pointed out, LLM outputs cannot be copyright).

I can read your code, learn from it, and create my own code with the knowledge gained from your code without violating an OSS license.

Why is Clean-room design a thing then?

You can’t “train” on code you haven’t copied. That is kind of obvious, right? So did they have the right to copy and then reproduce the work without attribution?

Training proprietary LLMs on open source code is shitty, rent-seeking behavior, but not really a unique development, and certainly not something that undermines the core value of open source.

Destroying “share alike” doesn’t undermine the core value of open source? What IS the core value?

That’s the TIME magazine cover, buddy.

Copyleft software isn’t supposed to just be repackaged as proprietary, though. Permissive licenses, sure - but people know what they were signing up for (presumably) there.

Do you understand how free software works? Did you read the post? I’d love to clarify, but I’m not going to rewrite the article.

I wonder if the whole purpose of promotion of FOSS by big companies was, long-term, this. Finding some way to abuse openness and collect for free the resource that becomes digital oil in the next stage, but only for those who own the foundries - computing resources for ML, that is.

Even if it wasn’t, it seems that they are perfectly fine with it now.

Hold onto this comment, I may need to delete this post and repost depending on what the developer here recommends. I definitely want to respond here.

Should I delete and repost?

Love the attention you give the community - we all appreciate it. 😃

Totally, but the Disney employees (or the contractors) got paid. I think it is particularly galling when the piracy happens to people who are working for free.

Might be a federation thing?

Here’s the link: https://www.quippd.com/writing/2025/12/17/AIs-unpaid-debt-how-llm-scrapers-destroy-the-social-contract-of-open-source.html

Sorry, what are you talking about? What browsers offer more than a chatbot window? Even Perplexity’s browser is just a chatbot window on top of Chromium.

Disco is the only one where I’ve seen something beyond that.

Not disagreeing with you - just saying that the legal underpinnings of open source are the copyright regime.

Copyright isn’t awesome, it is useful. The whole basis of open source is built on the concept of copyright (copyleft), so alignment with copyright isn’t “sudden”, it is fundamental.

But also not open source.

Eich was a failure. He sat on e10s for years while Chrome continued gaining marketshare. The path to monetization is something he says he wanted to do at Mozilla but did at Brave instead.

At Brave, he started with a Gecko offshoot but couldn’t make it work and retreated to Chromium.