I don’t see the point of romanticizing the scene as preserving some “pure” hacker ethos and conflating it with FOSS.
I’d rather use some free and open source software I can audit and trust rather than some pirated shit some company built.
FOSS creates sustainable value. Companies can build businesses around FOSS through services, support, hosting, and custom development. The scene creates nothing, they don’t promote standards, don’t think of interoperability and so on.
The internet and the very service you’re using run on open source software. The people that build them have values and I don’t think at any point they thought of creating something for LLMs to train on - that’s like the dumbest conspiracy theory I’ve read since a long time and it doesn’t even make sense timeline-wise.
The original FOSS licenses were designed to restrict corporate exploitation, not enable it (even if you have some more permissive licenses that make more sense to be used in a enterprise context), but it was promoted because it worked better and created value.
Would you say the same thing to an artist that freely shared his art and see his work copied in the output of some generative ai tool? That would be victim-blaming
More culturally mature in which ways? Very curious to read anything about it.
Yes sure, but a contribution is already a statement in itself. I don’t mind if the person is “not good”. I’d be tempted to answer you by quoting you (without attempting to make it cryptic or cynical): life is indeed complex. There’s like an infinity of viewpoints on why people contribute to foss, but I think if people do, it’s because they’re getting value out of it, and as a result, the whole community does. Most foss contributors mind that.
Now if you keep alluding to deeper points without actually making them, I don’t see what I’d gain by continuing this conversation.