If the author doesn’t specifically make a declaration in the readme, is there a way to guess how “vibe coded” a project is?
Like I want to know if there is anyone actually in charge… A human who knows at least how to program their own program.
If the author doesn’t specifically make a declaration in the readme, is there a way to guess how “vibe coded” a project is?
Like I want to know if there is anyone actually in charge… A human who knows at least how to program their own program.
No offence, but that list is nothing but pathetic honestly. a few dozen projects out of millions? it suggests lack of seriousness, because at the very least they could scrape together a list of those who haven’t been updated since 2024 (or some other arbitrary date) where it was impossible to have been. When I see “last commit 13 years ago” I have some confidence.
This thread… I can’t make heads or tails of it. I don’t think LGPL->MIT, but if you do a “clean” rewrite, isn’t it “technically” OK? Isn’t that what BSD is? GPL Linux re-written? I am not sure what authority an original creator from 10+ years ago should have, because sometimes those people are jackasses. Just because someone started some simple thing doesn’t mean they have moral ownership indefinitely. What if they are a jackass? If it’s the case, then linux and git are both limited to the moral horizons of linus torvalds. That is bleak.
I’m not sure I understand what your point is, the list is programmatically generated from a template and a thoughtful collection of files, one for each project, and has had actual consideration put into it. Is actively maintained and was last updated 2 weeks ago. It’s not supposed to be a list of of all existing free software that rejects AI contributions, just a list of notable projects that do, and it seems to succeed for that goal. If you have suggestions for them, feel free to open an issue at https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index/issues
As for the chardet issue thread I linked: The issue is that using an LLM to generate a new codebase that does the same thing as the old codebase is pretty trivial. So if that’s all it takes to evade software licenses, then open source licenses don’t do much for copyright, because anyone can just use an LLM to generate an equivalent version of the copyrighted project but without the license.
Also, there isn’t really such a thing as a “clean” rewrite when LLMs are involved: The LLMs likely used the original project as source material, AI is notorious for stealing copyrighted work and GitHub is a very common source of training material for LLMs. LLMs don’t create anything new, they’re just spitting out the material that they were trained on.