this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
655 points (99.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
33911 readers
1141 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
- If the mod doesn't find it funny, you're banned. Ha-ha!... For real: do not use the community for "statements". There are other places for such content. Keep it chill and funny.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I'd like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.
Was likely bullshit. Just like just about everything else people behind for profit LLMs say about their business practices.
Almost certainly
Sure but you moved the goalpost from ''they weren't allowed'' to "they aren't being honest". There's people in this thread who are in the repos, so we can find that out without assuming.
Also, at least their model is opensource and can easily be selfhosted on consumer hardware. Helps with your datacenter point from earlier. Like if this project does what it says its supposed to do, it's genuinely interesting. If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.
No. I included the lack of honesty in my original explanation.
If anyone's moving goalposts, it's you with your constant shifting from one point to the other to excuse their behavior.
Unless OP is a total lie, they clearly are.
Why are you assuming I am excusing their behaviour?
Because you keep grasping for completely hypothetical scenarios in which it's excusable.
Would you find it acceptable if their claims at face value were true?
Another unlikely hypothetical.
Their claims are almost certainly not true. Which is part of the problem.
You're just refusing to engage with point. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
No. You keep restating points I've already addressed, pretending that I haven't.
Yeah, its a strategy when you want someone to understand something they clearly haven't. You restate it in different words. You may have addressed it, that doesn't mean you understood my position. I don't mean that to sound bitchy btw. 😅 We just chatting. We cool. 👉 👉