10 hours
Perhaps that’s the problem. If it’s bad, I can still tell and choose not to read it. If it seems to make sense but actually not, I’m just going to waste my valueab time.
CarrotsHaveEars
- 0 posts
- 8 comments
Joined 5 years ago
Cake day: October 3rd, 2021
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
It is now called ”Done".
Link to the official website, will you?
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/10/09/tdf-visual-identity/
Excuse me, do you call this open source?
For real. I can open source my valueable projects to you. But what if I deliberately make it hard to read, like mangling it or minifying it?
Hell, every piece of JavaScript code on Earth is technically open source. If you can read assembly, everything is open source.
Only having the source code distributed is not open source in spirit. The intention of opening the source code is welcoming auditing, learning, contributing, to name a few.
“Opening” the source code of slop, with tons of meaningless boilerplates, non-logical paths and flows, heavily coupled modules and functions, thousand-line long functions, achieves none of the purpose of the intention.
This. The law says, “to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record.” How is talking to AI satisfying the threshold of sending, posting, or transmitting?
There is still a distinction between bad human-written source code and AI slop.
The human holds the copyright of his work and can do whatever he wants with it, including distributing it under a open/libre license, i.e., open source.
AI slop? Not so much. The model is very likely trained on stolen work. It’s tainted. Nobody owns the copyright of everything it generates. No one can “open source” it. The license every one receives is voided.
And both who (intentionally) releases bad code to the crowd lack the spirit of open source, but the AI one is also right out illegal.