They decided they needed to capture the whole open source ecosystem by turning open source work into social networking... on a proprietary platform (because open source is great, especially when it's others' software). That was before they joined Microsoft.
And then Microsoft pushed AI everywhere, including on GitHub itself with copilot.
I would have liked if they had left the open source projects alone and didn't create that FOMO for not using them.
> And then Microsoft pushed AI everywhere, including on GitHub itself with copilot.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. I like AI. I work for an AI company. Still, Microsoft aggressively pushed GitHub users toward Copilot. They don't get to do that and complain about increased volume from AI-generated changes.
No Copilot + reasonable operation: the way things were
Copilot + reasonable operation: Well done!
No Copilot + being overwhelmed by AI commits: Sympathy.
Copilot + being overwhelmed by AI commits: "Where did that petard come from that's hoisting us?"
The labs might not be open. But they would want access to data. More open platforms (the web at large, but bluesky in particular has made open access an explicit goal) tend to provide that, relative to x/threads/facebook/reddit/youtube.
Some labs will be able to buy access. Not every platform will offer it. There are many more labs than the big ones.
The title is accurate: it's "I think". There's no convincing argument or study about whether the backlash is about big tech, data centers or AI or not. Maybe I'm a bit tired but I didn't find any objective information in this post on the matter.
If we are sharing just opinions, I'll say that it's definitely a mix of things. And the anti AI sentiment (in part because of the environmental impacts) is very real.
The rapid growth of AI possibly also raised anti tech growth sentiment more generally: in a way, we are realizing that tech doesn't live in clouds but is very much tangible, and its externalities too. Tech has never been this concrete in a way. And in parallel people are more and more aware that big tech doesn't straigtforwardly design its software to serve the end user, so yes, there's also a negative sentiment because of this too.
> There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days
I suppose forcing a means to share the source code could have been too restrictive, but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself (it should be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"), not how it is shared, so indeed, not a violation of the letter of the GPL I think.
It's like what we had in France and the Hadopi, which requested ISPs to share the IP addresses of people torrenting a defined set of files. One of them sent them printed on paper... (But the malicious compliance was cool in this case).
> I suppose forcing a means to share the source code could have been too restrictive, but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself (it should be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"), not how it is shared...
With the greatest of respect, you've forgotten what the licenses say.
GPLv2: [0]
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
...
GPLv3: [1]
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer [to convey the source code upon request]... on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
...
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. ...
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
This unambiguously speaks about the form in which the source code is shared. If the licenses didn't specify this, folks would be compliant with the letter of the license by shipping you a printout of the source code and everything you need to build it and charging you for both the labor to generate that enormous, heavy-ass printout and shipping and handling to get it to you. [2]
[2] To downvoters: Don't forget that OCR was decent even back in the 1990s... certainly good enough for a good-quality printout in a fixed-width font to be -strictly speaking- machine-readable, and it has only gotten better as time has wobbled on. If you don't believe my account of the history, go look up how Zimmerman exported copies of PGP back when it was considered an export-controlled munition.
People are getting way too bent out of shape over that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit. It doesn't mean github. It doesn't mean "the medium I use most commonly".
Basically, if you think courts are going to be OK with interpreting "download from this FTP site" as acceptable but "download the same tarball from Drive" as unacceptable, you're fooling yourself.
Drive is fine, given the spirit of the license. It's merely inconvenient.
I hope you're not including me in "people". Remember that I said:
There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days, but ... I'm skeptical that it's a violation of the letter of the GPL.
I was quoting the text of the GPL to point out to jraph that it absolutely does restrict how source code is distributed to ensure that licensees are obligated to distribute in a format that's actually useful to the typical recipient, rather than permitting a licensee to ship a couple-hundred pounds of printouts and still be in compliance with the license.
Indeed, you are right, my phrasing "but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself" is somewhat wrong or at least incomplete. I should have been more careful. It does force some stuff about how to convey the corresponding source; and it seems the GPLv3 tries to close some loopholes or address some situations more explicitly. You cited the parts of the GPLv2 and GPLv3 I should have.
I stand by the position that all this doesn't seem very restrictive though. I don't think the GPL could have been without a risk of making some legitimate cases litigious or something.
> I stand by the position that all this doesn't seem very restrictive though.
Is your position that it's less restrictive than it needs to be?
If that's not your position, then I'm not at all sure why you're bringing this up. If that is your position, then I disagree with you. The entire point of the GPL is to require distributors to "share and share alike". It's not a "sue everyone into oblivion" license, it's a "don't be a fuckin asshole with this gift I gave you to use, inspect, and modify however you wish... pass it along to others under the same terms" license.
I think the GPL doesn't impose much on how one should be redistributing the source code.
I'm not sure I would like it to me more restrictive, and I completely agree with your reading (starting from "The entire point of the GPL...").
> If that's not your position, then I'm not at all sure why you're bringing this up.
My initial reply to you was me mostly agreeing with you: distributing via Google Drive is probably not a violation of the letter of the GPL. Making it a pain to get the source code is an obvious violation of its spirit though (your "don't be a fuckin asshole" point).
>> my phrasing ... is somewhat wrong
> It's completely wrong.
Well, what concrete restriction you see in the GPL about how to redistribute the source code, apart from "you must make it available in a reasonable way (and tell people they can get it, the GPLv3 is more explicit about this but Android doesn't have GPLv3 code AFAIK)?"
Open source doesn't imply open to contributions. And you could imagine source available software that's not open source but takes contributions (and this is not theoretical, I've seen this in the wild).
(However, that's quite orthogonal to being a dick about making the source code that you must share available)
Nobody forces the user to use the app. And from the screenshots I see online, Meta's app, Threads is used mostly by adult people to post dating stories and jokes. Do not consider this dangerous. Instagram is also used mostly by adults. As for Facebook, I do not know who uses it.
You needn't shill for big tech companies; on the contrary, good and sensible regulation has been eroded by all the lobbying efforts these monopolists have done and the pressure of the faux-conservatives that portray themselves as victims of persecution against their free speech rights (when they had been correctly flagged as posting harmful content or hoaxes [0]).
There are a couple of fallacies you've managed to bundle there:
1. Doomscrolling Facebook/Instagram is not equivalent to rest
2. Although rest is a good reward for a hard day's work, you're conflating Social Media Usage with resting, which has been proven to be detrimental to overall well-being [0], and associated with poor sleep quality (i.e. detrimental to rest).
3. You were saying that addiction was a user problem, but now you're acknowledging the addictiveness of the platform
Your response may have been facetious and sarcastic, but your previous replies suggest that that wasn't the case.
They decided they needed to capture the whole open source ecosystem by turning open source work into social networking... on a proprietary platform (because open source is great, especially when it's others' software). That was before they joined Microsoft.
And then Microsoft pushed AI everywhere, including on GitHub itself with copilot.
I would have liked if they had left the open source projects alone and didn't create that FOMO for not using them.
I have no sympathy.