They allow LLM contributions tho...

Code generated by a large language model or similar technology ... is presumed to be tainted code, and must not be committed without prior written approval by core.

I recommend you read this article.

Also look at the history of the Linux kernel and you'll see that GPL does not protect against corporate interests from taking over.

RedoxOS

They also have an anti-LLM policy in place.

5

Perfect is the enemy of good. Just because every consumption choice cannot be ethical, doesn't mean none of them should be.

I am condemning Linus and others like him because the choice to not use LLMs isn't a difficult one to make. You only lose a little comfort. So when you choose to trade everything shitty that LLM usage necessitates for a little comfort, just as Linus likes to say, you can go fuck yourself.

EDIT: Grammar

Reading these comments I have to contend that the halo effect is indeed powerful.

IMO it's immoral to use LLM's for any and every purpose and I think every slopper should be called out; no matter how accomplished they are.

Contractual obligations cannot override laws does not mean the law is not legally binding.

I think this is the one time I can pull out my fancy word knowledge and say: this is a non sequitur.

Also my original comment intended to point out the flaw in the above commenters argument (which argued that you can sue games companies that sell you digital games and then revoke licenses).

Other than that, I agree with you.

I don't think you know what legally binding means. By your definition laws are also not legally binding because they can't make you do anything; they can only tell you what will happen if you break them.

You're right in that no contractual obligation can override your rights (and their obligations). Nevertheless the breadth of the things to which you can give consent to (often unknowingly) is wild.

Thanks for the constructive feedback! I'll add the context ASAP.

But I don't want to tell people how to think. IMO people should form their own (educated) opinions. I know this community has a heavy bias and I respect that, but can't I just post new opinions so we can have a discussion around that (and maybe even change our opinions based on the outcome of the discussion)?

In my experience not everyone is knowledgeable about everything and an open and respectful (as opposed to hostile) discussion is the way to inform new opinions. Am mistaken in thinking my approach should be tolerated in this community?

After reading other comments I see now how the author's stance was ignorant. But what context should I have added? That I am not the author?

Although I'm not really new to Lemmy in general, making posts is a new one for me but I am willing to learn how to make better posts.

If you had read the blog post, you would know that the author is criticising the communication and the methods Codeberg took to combat the harms of slopware, not the general structure or the power that Codeberg holds over its platform.