Good programmers copy; Greater programmers steal?
Good artists copy; Great artists steal
- Pablo Picasso
Pablo Picasso is often credi...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Hasn't all the open source code already been stolen by the AI though? :)
The Gen Z in me: based 🗿.
Those codes are protected by licenses and are meant to be used within this terms.
Copying their code is misconduct and misuse of licence.
Hi Felix,
Thanks for your comment!
I agree with you 100%
I agree, but at the same time GitHub did use the codes for training LLMs. But it's in their Privacy Policy or somewhere I remember such an argument sometime early 2023.
Hence Roy's last paragraph:
"As long as copying is allowed under the project's license and you follow the requirements of the project's license you aren't stealing."
Clearly Microsoft / OpenAI etc consider the individual parts of an Open Source project to be fair game. I consider it that way too. If I read some code, that is open source, and as a result I understand a principle, then I can't unlearn that - so just typing it out again is another form of copying.
Software patents exist for protecting whole algorithms, that's fine, I don't like it much but it's fine. Copyright is about exact replication. The terms of a permissive Open Source license are by nature permissive, I'll take what I like. If I take most of it then I'll credit the author and include their license. If it's one function, I probably won't bother and I hope no one else does too.
Feel free to take any part or whole of anything I've made open source and use it as you will. Commercial use - fine, private use - fine. Take bits of it and use it - fine. Publish it as your own - fine. Just don't hold me liable for it working. This is how it should be, not some horrendous race to protect and own knowlege, but rather a freedom to use it.
If license allows then it's not stealing
Legally you can reuse open source code, but ethically you should minimize copying, understand the license terms, and always attribute the original source.
You're workflow is absolutely right. Imho this is one of main reason to why we sharing our code to public. Have to chanche other one to read, using copy, get a new idea, fork or conduct. I does not count that action as stealing.
Even Oracle give us permission to use the source code in the examples of Java Tutorial they provide, as long as we follow the conditions. In all of the examples, the conditions are always mentioned at the top of the source code as follows :
Although I use the examples mainly for the purpose of learning, chances are I will use parts of the source code, with some modification, in my application.
The four freedoms mean you can copy, modify, look, and run source code that is under an OSI certified license. So it’s not stealing, it’s a freedoms that developers enjoy thanks to open source.
Mere duplication does not require an artist or software engineer. Creative forms that can take existing work without destroying or otherwise changing the original. But the quote begs the question about what copying and stealing are in the context of creative work.
When an artist copies, they are making derivative works, which might violate the copyright of another. When great artists steal, they take the fundamentals from others but use that to make their own art, which is not copyright infringements.
Similarly, if you merely research open source code to inform your own, you are copying the approach. It is not until your programming changes to incorporate the fundamentals that you have "stolen" something. That's my interpretation of the quote and how it can inform us.
This is why I pair all of my OSS projects with an MIT license. It makes these discussions trivial. Is it always a good solution? Probably not, but it works for most of the time.
Whatever I release as an OSS, I already accepted that it will be reused, relabelled, "stolen", copied, etc. It's usually fine, that's why I release it as an OSS project instead of as a product.
I think for a programmer, for a developer is okay to re use code, but someone self proclaimed or title proclaimed engineer, the creative portion of coding can not be omitted.
Right now even the companies ask to not "reinvent the wheel" copying code form stack overflow, but with that we are coping the same errors and not improving the process, understanding the reasoning.
Just my point of view... Aside of the copyright, we are not creating/improving/thinking anything... That's worst than copying.
As an Open Source License you would not bothered with the none Stealing an Source Code that your not Stealing is an Offensive To do but then as an Coder or Programer you can differ between the means of the Other and Getting your Code Completed which is not Stealing
that is why exist WTFPL License. Since some time ago, I thinking in change the license of my persona work in OSS to this!
How can you steal if it's open source? Open source is meant to be used, copied, cloned, repurposed, and recycled in other ways everyone can benefit from. That's why it's "open". That's why GPL, BSDL, CDDL, ISC, and every open source license exists... To protect openness and endure that a project stays available.
If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” -Isaac Newton. I always saw open source as a driver for creativity and innovation providing "digital shoulders".
Your last paragraph; 100% correct.
If you have a GNU/GPL license, you can copy GPL & Apache 2.0 license code
I make my project open source and apply a license because I want it to be used and copied.
So please! Copy the code, even if it means you copy everything verbatim. We want it to be used.