23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] terabyterex@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

FOSS 100% does NOT have a moral stance. once you asign morality to your software, its no longer FOSS. freedom as in beer means itt costs you no money, freedom as in speech means you can use it on a missle guidance system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

[-] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

The "free" is as in speech, which is a moral stance.

[-] terabyterex@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

ok, we are arguing english language. so yes but i was addressing the commenters implied morality on use. which is not allowed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

[-] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I did not take that implication from their post. I don't think that we are arguing semantics. They are saying that licensing code as FOSS is a moral stance, and so is refusing to use llm code generation.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
23 points (92.6% liked)

Linux

15024 readers
398 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS