GNU General Public License

That's actually a very good, um, summary, uh, or just the, from the reading.

And you can see the license is GPL 2.0 license.

So if you wanna know more about the General Public License version two and above, I did create article, uh, articles on, on, uh, blog articles on ojumbo.com.

I also made some, I think at least ten to fifteen-minute videos and some short, short videos if you prefer the short version.

So yeah, just, just go to ojumbo.com and search for the GNU...

Well, just search GPL two point, uh, just G-GPL license and it, uh, that will come up.

All right.

So, uh, that's basically it.

If it's not copyrightable, It can't be licensed.

If it can't be licensed, I don't know what it's doing in a GPL project.

Now, there are people who don't agree with that interpretation of current US copyright law.

I continue to think that they're wrong.

People have been making slop for decades anyways.

So if they submit a PR with GPL code in it or security flaws or anything else, it's not mergeable and needs to be sent back regardless if AI was involved or not.

The biggest benefit we have seen from this is finally upping our CI game.

Nice.

Thank you.

And it is

AGPL3 as well.

This looks like a heck of a pick.

Latest release is 3.311, still going.

And the licensing is worth noting because it's dual licensed, GPL version 2 or later, or a proprietary license you can buy.

So it lives both in the free world and in commercial products, and has for decades.

Academic software that became infrastructure.

So if we actually go to the Git- GitLab.xfc.org/app/xfburn, you can see here, this one, uh, you see there, it's still being supported.

You can see the, um, history, of course, and you see the public license, the GNU General Public License version two or later, which I did review, uh, I think it was last year.

All right.

So, [clears throat] as I said before, let's, um, let's actually get started here.

So this is an attempt at a generally useful AI policy for open source maintainers.

The comparison I would make is it's kind of like pre-made software licenses, just like the GPL and the MIT are pre-written ways to say, here's how you are legally allowed to use my code.

This is an attempt to pre-define possible ways that you might accept or disallow AI-powered contributions to an open source project.

Yes.

That's the inventkde.org/games/kapman.

The license is GPL 2.0+, the GNU, uh, General Public License, and support Kapman too by becoming a supporting member.

Uh, the handbook, so we're gonna take a look at this.

They also have a forum.

It's embeddable.

Web servers, database servers, open source under its Artistic license or the GNU General Public License.

So it's open source.

Artistic, I think this is the...

So it's the lust, the longing for putting your hands inside the circuitry to look how it works, to know how it works.

Richard Stallman in 1984 put it very well with the GNU General Public License, saying that free software means that you are free to use it, to study it, to modify it and to redistribute it.

And just like software, I thought that every infrastructure around us should have this sort of transparency, openness to those of us who are curious enough to study it and not keep intelligent people away from learning from their own environment.

So I think that's the first hacker seed in a personality.

This is the same thing we've talked about for a while now.

various projects have handled it differently.

But as Graham put it bluntly, LLMs lower the barrier to enter for people who have no idea what they're doing to basically DDoS, FOSS, you know, free open source software maintainers with a tidal wave of crap.

Now, the reason I'm doing this story is this took on a life of its own.

So if you got crap code, see ya.

We're not dealing with it.

And like I said, this is a stance like a lot of projects are taking now.

You can use AI in general.