Marek FořtWait what, you can't use a *code* editor when you're under 18 now? 🤔
Jimmy@marekfort @Gargron I think it’s probably more that you can’t enter into a legal agreement like new ToS unless you’re 18 (in the US, at least…)
Lawyers ruin everything.
Techokami@jimmylittle @marekfort @Gargron ...why do you need a Terms of Service agreement for *A TEXT EDITOR*
@techokami @marekfort @Gargron Every commercial piece of software has terms.
Even open source. That MIT license? It’s the legal terms that govern your use of the software.
Especially considering software that is hooked to an LLM is no longer just *A TEXT EDITOR*. It's connected to the internet. It can send your data elsewhere. It can receive data. All of that stuff requires legal approval.
I totally respect if someone doesn't want AI all up in their business. If that's you, don't use a text editor with AI features. We all have options.
Cassandrich@jimmylittle @techokami @marekfort @Gargron Um, no. No open source software has *terms*. It has one-way *grants* of rights to do things that the law might otherwise forbid you from doing (like copying and making derivative works), possibly subject to conditions. But you never have to "agree" to any "terms" in order to use it.
@dalias @techokami @marekfort @Gargron Sure you do. MIT, GPL, Apache are all open source agreements you tacitly “accept” by using it. The permission is granted “provided the user” follows certain guidelines.
Sure, there’s usually no checkbox to use open source software, but accepting the grant of license is usually legally regarded as accepting the restrictions (or _terms_) of the agreement.
It’s a difference without a distinction.
@jimmylittle @techokami @marekfort @Gargron No. GPL, in its ideological purity, is VERY VERY EXPLICIT (in v2 paragraph 5; in v3 paragraph 9) that you are not required to accept it. Anyone exercising their rights under the GPL has an obligation to ensure that recipients know they are not obligated to accept any "license agreement" or other terms as a condition for receiving or using the software.
Other licenses do not make a point of this because it's obvious. If you legally received a copy of the software, you own that and have every right to use it. The purpose of the license is only to tell you that, in addition to the right you have to use it, you can freely copy it for others, prepare derivative works, etc.
@dalias @techokami @marekfort @Gargron GPL is certainly the most permissive that I’m aware of (and I’m no expert, for sure), including passing the license on to derivative works.
But, let’s say you take GPL-licensed code and make something that you put a different license on – that is a violation of your GPL “grant”, right?
You can break the “terms” of open-source by the simple act of building closed software with it.
@jimmylittle @techokami @marekfort @Gargron That's not use. It's copying and preparing derivative works and it's illegal because copyright law says so. Not because of some terms you "agreed" to.