I think OP is saying that github, and forges like it, making pull requests so easy, have created a situation where the users bother them too much with said requests. This wasn't always the case with open source, back before community web-based forges were a thing, and it was much more difficult to collaborate from outside the project (where the project has their own regular contributors that do most of the work).
But I don't think most people actually want to just turn off pull requests like they are suggesting... I think that would be disastrous for the open source community as it operates now, and may push people further away to other (maybe even closed) projects.
Sounds like the OpenBSD model to me. Actually, if I'm honest, that's really just the Freeware model of Andrew Fluegelman. You get the program, the source code, the right to make modifications and release them, just don't expect upstream to incorporate them. (If confused, go look up PC-TALK.)
Afaik LLM-generated code cannot be copyrighted in the USA, and therefore cannot be licensed. It's automatically public domain. This makes it incompatible with most OSS licenses. Several of my personal favorite projects have already prohibited LLM-generated code. That doesn't mean the frequency and quality of contributions won't still increase. I use my LLM harness for all kinds of grunt work that would have sucked up hours. Git surgery, code exploration, PM. But we don't need a whole new paradigm for a brave new world. I've heard that'd boil the sky and poison the water anyway. Too expensive.
The context around copyright of LLM code, at least in the US, is currently more complicated than clear. See for example [0] and the comments on the article it's responding to.
This is not true... many prominent OSS projects based in the US currently use LLM-generated code, including the Linux kernel, many distros, BSDs etc.
Remember that if there is a complaint such as copyright infringement, that still must go through the normal court process. Only the copyright holder can sue, and not everyone chooses to do so.
They must prove how/why the code is infringing, and then a judge/jury makes a subjective determination on things like fair use, transformation etc. to determine just how similar/different the code is, how obvious it is, if a human is likely to have come up with the same code independently, if there are any monetary damages to collect/etc.
There is no blanket law that says LLM-generated code cannot be copyrighted. And how the model got the code in the first place is largely irrelevant here.
Hasn’t this always been the case with forks?
I think OP is saying that github, and forges like it, making pull requests so easy, have created a situation where the users bother them too much with said requests. This wasn't always the case with open source, back before community web-based forges were a thing, and it was much more difficult to collaborate from outside the project (where the project has their own regular contributors that do most of the work).
But I don't think most people actually want to just turn off pull requests like they are suggesting... I think that would be disastrous for the open source community as it operates now, and may push people further away to other (maybe even closed) projects.
Sounds like the OpenBSD model to me. Actually, if I'm honest, that's really just the Freeware model of Andrew Fluegelman. You get the program, the source code, the right to make modifications and release them, just don't expect upstream to incorporate them. (If confused, go look up PC-TALK.)
I'm carrying so many patches these days. I need a term for it. This feels like an ok go at it, a remix.
Mentioned this just the other day, the want for a term for this:
> mercy it's not even a fork. we don't even have a word for this! i'm juggling a bunch of patches atop opencode. sort of a fork. a running fork? https://bsky.app/profile/jauntywunderkind.bsky.social/post/3...
Out of curiosity, what is the reason for all these patches?
Afaik LLM-generated code cannot be copyrighted in the USA, and therefore cannot be licensed. It's automatically public domain. This makes it incompatible with most OSS licenses. Several of my personal favorite projects have already prohibited LLM-generated code. That doesn't mean the frequency and quality of contributions won't still increase. I use my LLM harness for all kinds of grunt work that would have sucked up hours. Git surgery, code exploration, PM. But we don't need a whole new paradigm for a brave new world. I've heard that'd boil the sky and poison the water anyway. Too expensive.
The context around copyright of LLM code, at least in the US, is currently more complicated than clear. See for example [0] and the comments on the article it's responding to.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354482
This is not true... many prominent OSS projects based in the US currently use LLM-generated code, including the Linux kernel, many distros, BSDs etc.
Remember that if there is a complaint such as copyright infringement, that still must go through the normal court process. Only the copyright holder can sue, and not everyone chooses to do so.
They must prove how/why the code is infringing, and then a judge/jury makes a subjective determination on things like fair use, transformation etc. to determine just how similar/different the code is, how obvious it is, if a human is likely to have come up with the same code independently, if there are any monetary damages to collect/etc.
There is no blanket law that says LLM-generated code cannot be copyrighted. And how the model got the code in the first place is largely irrelevant here.