We now note that that we do not waive our attribution requirements for Spritely Goblins, which are present in Apache v2 (and for that matter, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and most FOSS licenses) https://codeberg.org/spritely/goblins/pulls/998/files

@cwebber having unwittingly become an expert in a certain cursed project, I say: attribution is SUPER IMPORTANT.

The cursed project when it was announced tried to hide they were based on ATproto, then launched and quietly went closed-source à la Truth Social.

And whenever they use other people’s tools built on ATproto, they are TERRIBLE at crediting them. Ouuuuuuf!

Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.

If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.

@bkuhn @trashheap I appreciate the clarification on your position here.

I still do hold the positions that attribution are the glue that hold the commons together, and it's important that we fight to preserve it, and not give the impression that it is being voluntarily waived in the face of LLMs.

@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap@tech.lgbt If bkuhn's right that permissive licenses make attribution hard to enforce, then the best way to accomplish that would be to use copyleft.

Anyway, if you keep Apache v2, it would certainly make sense to include a NOTICE file, since currently an Object derived from goblins does not need to attribute you at all. And as Apache v2 defines "Object", that seems to include AI models.

@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap IMO the real challenge to FOSS enforcement against LLM producers is the same one everyone else has: if the training is fair use because the resulting model is transformative, the producer doesn’t need a license (and doesn’t have to respect the terms of any existing license). It’s still early early days in terms of court decisions, but this looks like the direction we’re headed in the US (though the outcome will likely vary depending on how much memorization a model can be shown to do).

@copiesofcopies @bkuhn @trashheap My main concern is that the resulting legislative environment is as equitable for FOSS as it is for the proprietary world, whatever the outcome is. In many ways this is why I'm happy to see the vibe-laundered versions of Adobe's suite etc, I think that will push the issue.

@copiesofcopies

∃ **so many** cases pending! It seems to me we can't guess the outcome at this point with reliability beyond like a 1-to-100 (or more) chance against the field.

Also, keep in mind the way most software developers use LLM-gen-AI now is to modify a work in front of them: `git clone` something, then work with the #LLMGenAI to modify it. I don't see how a fair use defense will allow those changes to dodge license requirements.

Also, FOSS licenses are contracts, too.

Cc: @cwebber

@bkuhn @cwebber

I expect the world looks very different from where you’re sitting than from where I am. Every time I look at my (FOSS-heavy) fedi feed, I’m struck by the contrast between the AI pessimism & skepticism here versus everywhere else I look.

LLMs have become part of everyday life for vast swaths of ordinary people. Skilled software developers routinely use them to produce code that’s far from slop. And probably most importantly, the AI industry is widely viewed as the most significant driver of U.S. economic growth and competitive advantage going right now.

All of those things surely sound negative to you, but they’re descriptively true. And against that backdrop, I see very little possibility that US courts will cut OpenAI et al off at the knees, even though we’ll surely see adverse rulings in cases of obvious misappropriation (Anthropic’s trove of pirated books, Sora reproducing entire songs from its training data).

@copiesofcopies

produce code that's far from slop

i would say perhaps code that doesn't look like slop or doesn't look sloppy, but if it is generated by an LLM, it is slop, and i think it is really important not to cede that point regardless of how impressive the output appears and even regardless of whether it happens to be good or correct in a particular instance. i will say more if you want, but my interpretation is based on what i've heard and read from linguistics professor emily bender (who is here on fedi too)

(in terms of the world looking different here than outside, i am probably proving your point and you might unfortunately be right though, but i also know that the media is pushing false and inflated narratives including about the prevalence of use, capabilities, and sentiments of users. it's not all false and many of us know people who are either true believers or deep down the pit, but i suspect it's not as widespread as we're being made to believe or to extrapolate based on a handful of personal anecdotes.)

@cwebber

The legislative environment will *never* be equitable for #FOSS under capitalism (& as such, it's never *been* equitable).

IMO, the advent of LLM-gen-AI is “just another day at the office” b/c I've spent ≈30yrs trying to get Big Tech to follow #copyleft requirements. They refuse at their whim.

Those refusals increased steadily (& occasionally exponentially, like now) since #GPLv2's release.

Meet the new infringer — same as the old infringer.

Cc: @copiesofcopies

#AI #LLM #copyright

@tmw it’s always seemed to me that “slop” was a judgment about the quality of output. If it’s simply a value judgment about the source, i.e. code produced by an LLM is bad and “slop” and code produced by a human being is “not slop,” then I guess I’m not very interested in that conversation.

@joeyh

Yes, I do think copyleft is still going to be a tool that helps us to good outcomes in the age of LLM-gen-AI. I'm working on it.

Re: #Apache [sic] Software License: another reason to avoid it is that it's appropriated the name of North American native peoples.

Why anyone wants to use the #FOSS license equivalent of the “Washington Redskins” in 2026 is beyond me, especially when so many other licensing options abound.

Cc: @cwebber @trashheap

#LLMGenAI #LLM #AI #copyleft #licensing

@bkuhn @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap

The web server was not written in one go as a whole.
It was put together patch by patch
It was therefore A Patchy Server.

Being conscious of assorted things does not entirely rule out occasional flashes of humour, accretions of language, and mnemonic conveniences.

I hope.

@joeyh

Yes, I do think copyleft is still going to be a tool that helps us to good outcomes in the age of LLM-gen-AI. I'm working on it.

Re: #Apache [sic] Software License: another reason to avoid it is that it's appropriated the name of North American native peoples.

Why anyone wants to use the #FOSS license equivalent of the “Washington Redskins” in 2026 is beyond me, especially when so many other licensing options abound.

Cc: @cwebber @trashheap

#LLMGenAI #LLM #AI #copyleft #licensing

Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.

If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.

@cwebber What if the attribution is then done to every piece of training data? That's not impossible if the training data is known, but will it be acceptable?

@cwebber i'm an artist/academic/educator and i consider making foss to be a part of my practice. any kind of attribution helps me to make the case that my work has "impact" which in turn helps me to keep my job. a lot of foss projects that are related to academia in some way will request that papers resulting from research that makes use of the project include an actual bibliographical citation—i assume for similar reasons. tbh i think this prominent foss person is full of it

@yantar92 @cwebber

.. no the collection of training data is a problem because of the massive amount of strain it places on infrastructure set for the commons that makes it impossible for anyone else to access, and becuase its appropriating the commons then selling it back to you,

which still has nothing to do w copyright.

@cwebber @LunaDragofelis it annoys me that ppl would consider a lack of enforcement to be a lack of interest;

i dont want to enforce them because the normal means to do so is via state violence and i might like attribution but im not about to hurt someone over it.

i would however say, leave an issue or message the guy or things like that, about not attributing, generally tell everyone "hey they didnt make that" which ideally? would get out everywhere and no one would really beleive then saying "i made this"

from a certain perspective i dont subscribe too; this could be considered a kind of "enforcement" i suppose,

tbh alot of instances of it are also a mistake somewhat, like not clicking fork or whatever so then it just doesnt include where it came from ..

anyway its not a copyright thing; its just basic courtesy really -- like pirates usually dont even claim they made the thing.