this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
24 points (92.9% liked)
Linux
15412 readers
419 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
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
I'm not against LLM generated code in FOSS but it's nice to see a dev holding the line. There are a million distros to choose from, at least one needs to be 100% certified meat.
Sop code cannot be FOSS.
This is arguably true but not tested in court yet. Free open source software licenses are all based on copyright, which can only be applied to the creative works of a human. Anthropic and OpenAI would love to see that wording changed, but as of now it looks like no LLM output can be copyrighted at all. Which is really hilarious for any company that hopes to replace their creative staff with AI. It does mean that GPL and any other software license (FOSS or not) can't be applied to slop code as it's outputted directly. Again, not settled law, but the letter of the law.
But it's not all about the law. FOSS software also is a moral stance, of wanting code to be public and respected, and LLMs have been ignoring all that FOSS stands for.
Using LLM generated code goes against the core concepts of FOSS, and that's what matters, not really whether or not it is formally in the law.
FOSS 100% does NOT have a moral stance. once you asign morality to your software, its no longer FOSS. freedom as in beer means itt costs you no money, freedom as in speech means you can use it on a missle guidance system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
The "free" is as in speech, which is a moral stance.
ok, we are arguing english language. so yes but i was addressing the commenters implied morality on use. which is not allowed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
I did not take that implication from their post. I don't think that we are arguing semantics. They are saying that licensing code as FOSS is a moral stance, and so is refusing to use llm code generation.
We'll see what happens the next time Windows source code leaks if it contains AI slop code. It'd be heaven sent to ReactOS.
Only the parts written by LLMs would be public domain. Everything else would still be copyrighted by Microsoft. See https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
And since there's no easy way for outsiders to determine which part is what, it would be a minefield for anyone trying to use the leaked source code. ReactOS devs would have to stay far, far away to avoid giving MS an easy way to sink the project
yes it can. a for loop is not licensed, a program is
Aren't all llm generated code foss?
With this logic, you can steal the code of someone, ask the LLM to copy it, and then it loses copyright.
LLMs ignore any kind of licence when they absorb the code they train on, and as such cannot be part of a truly FOSS mentality.
Or the opposite per one of my new favorite satire sites: https://malus.sh/