Mastodawn

Software Freedom Conservancy Jun 18

Today, after a ton of work, we publish our Recommendations When Using LLM-backed Generative AI Systems for FOSS Contributions, which reflect the extremely difficult dilemmas that these systems pose for FOSS contributors. We're approaching LLM-gen-AI from a variety of perspectives and this is practical assistance to minimize damage caused by using proprietary systems, whether FOSS contributors reject LLM-gen-AI or choose (voluntarily or by employer mandate) to use them.

https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html

LLM-gen-AI - Software Freedom Conservancy

The Software Freedom Conservancy provides a non-profit home and services to Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects.

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 18

@conservancy nope. Fail.

The aim of gen AI is to move the means of production from devs to model owners. This undermines FOSS more thoroughly than any Embrace Extend Extinguish attempt to date.

Bradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈Jun 18

@jens said:
> “The aim of gen #AI is to move…means of production from devs to model owners”
…same idea as “The aim of copyright, work-for-hire,& proprietary software is to move the means of production from devs to for-profit company owners.”

Yet, we used the tools of theses oppressors & yielded a strong stalemate against them.

& *of course* they wanna undermine #FOSS! #Microsoft, #GitHub, #Apple, etc. have worked to undermine #FOSS for *decades*.

Pragmatic idealism FTW then & (we hope) again!

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 18

@bkuhn Stalemate?

It's an arms race, and one side has the funding for it. Hint: it's not us.

So forgive me if I judge success differently. Much of what I see are compromises that set up the next battle in a weaker position.

I understand that back in the day when free software and open source started, the libertarian positions it holds were adopted.

We had privileged white boys complaining about having their privilege reduced. Yes, with enough vision to see liberation for everyone on the...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 18

@bkuhn ... horizon. But not enough self-awareness to factor privilege into things.

Which is why the freedoms value individual choices much more highly than the common good. The logic is, quite literally, "I need liberties so I can help others", not "the rights of the unprivileged need to be strengthened".

It's missing the equivalent zero'th law of robotics. And fuck, it shows.

Jens Finkhäuser

@bkuhn This isn't capitalism's fault. There is a lot of fault in capitalism, sure.

But this is the FLOSS movement's own failure. It's my failure as well. I used to believe that shit. Feels good to picture oneself as a Robin Hood character.

So quelle surprise, but there are libertarians out there who do not value the commons, and we've let them dominate the conversation. Thinking they were some of us. But they're robber barons, arguing for their liberties in order to rob.

So any position...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 18

@bkuhn ... in 2026 that says, essentially, "we should let the robber barons retain their rights" has missed the train leaving the station.

Oh, thanks for also allowing in the recommendations that we can show them the door, so long as we don't hurt their feelings.

Well, I don't think that permission is required. Thank Cthulhu for that.

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 18

@bkuhn I swear, every time I see another old guard FOSS person take that position is another nail in the movement's coffin.

I'm already more than ready for the next thing. But it'd hurt some libertarians' feelings.

🫧 Social coding commons Jun 19

> It's an arms race, and one side has the funding for it. Hint: it's not us

Wasn't the flaw here? Shouldn't the FLOSS movement have been seeking sustainability for its 'peasants' from the very start?

I've been fondly quoting that Harvard study finding that (F(L))OSS contributes 9 trillion to the global economy. Yet its an unsustainable burnout zone for anyone who seeks to eek out a living in it. In the past I've said that dabbling in this movement feels like "burning ones privilege at the altar of sacrifice". Another way to look at it is that 99.9% of FOSS is really 'hobby projects' for those who can afford it.

Then the notion of "working in public" is imho flawed. After my years in the space it left me with uncomfortable questions.

https://social.coop/@smallcircles/116316524763055082

Just throwing new tech out into society is no different than what the opponent does, but does it more smartly and unscrupulously.

It's a pity, perhaps too late for me, but I'd love to explore "working in commons".

🫧 Social coding commons Jun 19

Note, and I must state this explicitly, that I'm not blaming any individual participant in the FOSS movement, where most people are doing their stinking best with noble - varying between the more mythical, or less mythical kinds - Robin Hood motives being their intrinsic motivational drivers. To do good for society.

The issues arise by Emergence i.e. in-the-large where the net impact on society may not be so positive. Where the individualism in FOSS where everyone goes it alone, or in tiny groups does not contribute to a sustainable economy, where the indivuals' ethics, morals, and values can be held high. Value is directly inserted in larger society, which works on the basis of hypercapitalism. The emergent FOSS movement can't escape Conway's Law that way.

A Big Industry analogy intrigues me, which can uphold hypercomplex global supply chains, whereas the typical FOSS project has trouble scaling beyond a handful of people. We must be able to organize our supply chains.

🫧 Social coding commons Jun 19

The TLDR is that imho the movement should be much more about people, than about the product that rolls off the production pipeline, i.e. the software. Coding is social.

Let FOSS be code + a protective license. SOSS then is the sustainable production facility, where many SOSS initiatives participate in the formation of a larger and growing commons based value economy. Doing service development, delivery, and exchange with other parties based on trust and proven track records. Creating a fitness formula that is better able to hold the bad actors at bay. Ideally this formula is such that bad actors push themselves out of collaborative arrangements, and become intrinsically motivated to adopt better and more sustainable practices, in order to reap most benefit from their commons participation.

🫧 Social coding commons Jun 19

> I'm already more than ready for the next thing. But it'd hurt some libertarians' feelings.

Jens, we spoke at length about these things in the past. I am very curious about your vision on the future of our movement.

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles Well, that's a difficult one.

I have some aims and thoughts, but no clear path yet. And I think that's actually good, because if there's anyone here that points in one direction and everybody else follows, we're failing from the start.

It's funny how these topics come up.once in a while, and then they bundle up weirdly.

So for one thing, a few days ago we stumbled upon new terminology, which I kind of like. From coding guidelines to mystics around the world, we get...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... told that names have power. I think it's because names are essentially pointers at arbitrarily complex mental models, and the power comes from succinctly transporting a complex idea.

So we, that is @onepict and @abucci and myself, were sort of half shitposting about FOSS and/or FLOSS. Anthony brought up LOSS as "Libertarian Open Source Software" as a much better name for showing the particular failure mode of the movement, which starts from individual liberties...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... and essentially hopes for the best in how that might translate into wider society. Not individuals - I agree that they often try very hard. But core tenets along which to orient oneself.

LOSS perfectly references the parts that work, but also clearly states that an important part is lost along the way.

So we were spitballing about what to call the other thing, the thing that we should have. I suggested MOSS, which is an awkward acronym for...

@onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... "Mutual(ly supportive) Open Source Software". Mostly it's because I wanted something green, soft, small, yet beautiful and full of life. The meaning.is.shoehorned into the word.

But it's pretty much what I want, too. I want to grow stuff, in its own time. I don't want to emulate startups based on extraction from the commons. I want people to feel good about it. I want to feel good about making it.

So it kinda caught on, for me at least, for a bit.

@onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles I want to focus on MOSS gardening.

I think this is also something where we've sort of lost our way. "We" definitely includes myself, and looking at various others out there, I'm not alone. I look at "small tech" folk, indie game.devs, etc. We want the joy of creation just as much as we want other folks to have joy. Happy little b+-trees, under skies dotted by fluffy home clouds.

Bob Ross channeling aside...

Another thread by @bagder was about what...

@onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... to tell folk with some political authority about sustainability, and I felt obliged to point out that we have two faces to the problem "coin":

1. Maintainers require that "no warranty of any kind" is required, because - and here I cross streams - MOSS gardening is incompatible with pressure to do things in a certain way.
2. Projects which build on the commons need supply chain safety in the same way they'd get from commercial offerings.

@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles The two are incompatible, until you have mechanisms in place by which the activities that users demand of suppliers are sustainably funded.

But those activities don't have to all be performed by a project maintainer. Some, like support, can be done elsewhere.

They key issues here revolve around how easy or hard it is to pick and choose between activities and rewards. As a MOSS gardener, I want to pick up issues when I can, and a coffee in...

@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles recompense is fine. If I'm supposed to review an onslaught of dodgy LLM "security issues", it's a full time job, and not what I signed up for.

Politics is great at creating regulatory frameworks that favour the stronger lobby. Here we have industry on the consumer side, and individuals on the supply side. It's pretty clear that regulatory efforts focus on "how can industry get what they need?"

So, putting a realistic cost to that is one of the...
@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... more effective arguments.

Meanwhile, if this means I cannot grow my MOSS garden any longer, well, we're all going to run out of commons pretty soon. So the flip side to this is to give gardeners all the incentives to turn their hobby into a job, with none of the downsides - until they decide they can take on some additional responsibility for additional incentive.

That is hard, because it requires trusting the gardeners instead of forcing...

@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... them.

So next there's the question of LLMs. I can tell you right now that if you bring your tractor to my backyard MOSS garden, I will tell you to fuck off.

Lastly, elephant in the room, is the wider human rights angle. Allowing commons gardeners to grow their MOSS is, after all, them taking advantage of some combination of their human rights.

But our libertarian LOSS philosophy also includes "for any use" clauses, and "any use" also...
@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... includes human rights violations. Genocide. Stealing the fruits of other people's labours.

When you see your code as a kind of gift to humanity, it's easy to take the stance that you've done your part, and it's up to others and other legal mechanisms to ensure that it's used well.

So there's a strong disconnect here between the freedoms that LOSS philosophy demands for contributors, and the needs of the general population.

"For any use"...

@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles... cannot work, cannot scale, cannot solve problems. Nobody is free until everybody is free.

So whatever path is chosen here, it needs to reject that libertarian point of view. We need enough room for variation to allow for individuals to grow their pet MOSS into vast rain forests. But this cannot be *expected* to be done, and such demands cannot come from industry alone.

Rather, the focus must be on fixing human rights issues before business...

@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@smallcircles. .. cases, and it still needs to be funded appropriately for anyone willing to step into that responsibility to make a living from it.

I wouldn't call that a vision. More a set of non-negotiable constraints on the solution space.

But whatever solutions may be explored in that, I'm convinced that none of us will individually come to a complete model.

@bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

🫧 Social coding commons Jun 20

@jens @bagder @onepict @abucci @bkuhn

Nice! Aligns well to SX, which is about sustainable evolution and organic growth on a basis of "Joyful creation" - an SX formula - within a commons. I like MOSS.

For the M in MOSS you might pick Mutualistic. In the narrative LOSS vs MOSS you force people in a political activist role via the L, which is I think unnecessary in a time where aware people already carry the weight of the world on their shoulder.

SX with Hedonic peer production revolves around finding intrinsic motivations on why people participate and stick around.

SOSS conveys "Save our souls" urgency, yet keywords are "sustainable social". It's about expectation management and good communication is key. It keeps FOSS as-is: code + a license, but focuses for it to be "commons based" i.e. created with a sustainability-first approach and respecting intrinsic values of Humanity and Freedom.

FSDL ensures accounting for changing Needs of direct and indirect stakeholders at any one time.

@[email protected] Wow, very well put. Thank you for this thread. I was on a vacation and not paying much attention to digital technology, and it was a joy to see what grew here while I was away. My lawn is another matter...

Just a small point, but I think one of the tensions you identify emerges from the impedance mismatch between our "capitalist culture" (for lack of a better term), and the MOSS culture you outline. As I see it, everything is circular with MOSS: it draws resources from its surroundings, and returns those in a different form. Any mechanism that depends on extracting from MOSS is a threat to its continued existence. We seem to be collectively struggling with the implications of this basic reality on a grand scale, not just in free and open source software but worldwide. Extraction, the way we've practiced it, is rapidly eroding the foundations that make extraction viable. We will have to develop an alternative, or an alternative will be forced on us, and I strongly believe the latter would be far more painful than the former (in the same way that the limits of gravity enforced by striking the ground at high speed is more painful than a walk down a staircase).

It strikes me that a small mindset shift from thinking of one's software contributions as a gift to thinking of one's software contributions as participating in a cycle might help a bit. Gift economies that work tend to be about a reciprocity that benefits all, after all. By contrast, giving to an abstraction, like "the world" or "the community", leads to all sorts of problems. Rivka Weinberg's talk "Against Altruism" makes this argument.

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Bradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈Jun 19

The recommendations don't say you shouldn't hurt the feelings of LLM-gen-AI proprietary companies. Pls do, if you can find a way: those running them are likely sociopaths & probably have no feelings to hurt.

What the recommendations say is to treat people who may not know what their doing and used a terrible tool for a terrible thing with kindness, and assistance rather than condemnation.

It's what we should have done to Microsoft fans in the 1990s. A lot more would use Linux today.

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn They don't actually say that at all. They say "should not shun" such contributors, though they say how one might reject the contribution. They also don't say anything about unknowing use.

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn The central issue here is *capacity erosion*, and that is entirely unaddressed.

In the short term, this is about the capacity to handle incoming changes, to review them meaningfully, and so forth.

In the longer term, it's the capacity to build software unassisted.

The recommendations on "careful use" mirror those of pretty much every other balanced recommendation on the subject I've seen.

Speaking as a manager of a software team, my issue is not throughput or efficiency of the...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn ... team members. They have good and bad moments, but at a fundamental level, their throughput is fine.

The issue is capacity maintenance. Knowledge transfer. Training and maintaining the ability to reason through complex problems.

I can already see how much this got reduced by a few more experienced people leaving, and younger folk joining. So now they use LLMs to help them reason. They will not have an equivalent learning curve in understanding what they build to become the seniors...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn ... that have left.

They're smart. They will figure other things out. I trust in *them*, as people.

But when they ask their LLM something, they shrug and say "the reply sounds reasonable, we can try it out?" Without a senior to tell them why it is or isn't a good idea, there's great uncertainty.

And the tools aren't reliable enough to make up for that.

So on the one hand, we're *losing* capacity. And on the other hand, we're becoming reliable on a rented tool.

When you translate...

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn ... this back to the commons, it's enclosure from within. We don't let landowners build fences around the commons, oh no!

Instead we say: there's this cool plant, let's put it in our community garden! Yes, the landowners told us about it. And yes, we pay the landowners rent for it. But it's so cool, because it grows almost without effort! And it's evergreen! The name? Oh, it's ivy... even sounds nice!

Accepting gen AI contributions is not a viable position.

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn Lest one think this is just "my" team, I spent many of my years consulting with software companies all around the world.

There's a widespread issue thinking that code generation is tedious and should be automated. The tedious part is thinking. But you can't automate that, you can at best shift it somewhere else.

Bradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈Jun 19

I wrote a 20 page thesis paper as an undergraduate Medieval Legends 400-level seminar under Professor Kelly DeVries on how the Robin Hood myth is widely misunderstood in the 20ᵗʰ century.

I am well-versed enough on the subject to say that @jens got the Robin Hood analogy all wrong.

#RobinHood #Medieval #MedievalLegends #MedievalLegend #KellyDeVries #DeVries #AI

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn Yeah. So much the point here. And so insightful, considering how widespread this misunderstanding is, as you point out.

In a different moment, I might even be interested. @jensimmons

Bradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈Jun 19

Understood.

TL;DR: the real Robin Hood was likely a deposed noble who manipulate the oral tradition narrative expertly to make himself a man of the people to get revenge on other nobles who were enemies.

Recent retellings have made Robin Hood pure as the driven snow which is a huge oversimplification.

Anyway , youre right it's OT but given I have a weird unexpected expertise on that mythology , I couldn't let it go. 😝

Jens Finkhäuser Jun 19

@bkuhn That is very understandable!

And your TL;DR is "sort of obvious", in the sense that the cynical side of me suspects this in all hero figures.

But I had no idea that were was actual evidence for this being collected and evaluated for the actual Robin Hood character. So thank you for this!