incredible take from one of the GNU maintainers, seriously
0 Boosts
0 Likes
@ariadne
Woa, these people have some severe issues. Are they just stupid or crazy?
@ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
Isn’t the “hypothetical example” the definition of Work?
@ariadne wait, wat
"must be YES"? is someone forcing the GNU project to accept all legally-valid contributions?
what kind of weak-ass nonsense is that
like regardless of what you feel about LLMs, it is very easy to just do/say anything other than "contributions resulting from slavery are good, actually"
@ariadne can there be one CLI-based text editor that isn't maintained by chuds
heck, can there be one LSP-compatible text editor, full stop, that isn't maintained by chuds
deep sigh am I gonna have to learn KATE
@ariadne Somehow I am not surprized. Somehow.
@ariadne huh, so that settles vim vs emacs then
If a libertarian is accepting the product of slave labor, he may not be libertarian at least not the original definition
@ariadne goddamnit emacs could you stop embarrassing me when I recommend you for like five goddamn minutes
@glyph @ariadne I'm still disgusted and mad about this hours later
(but seriously, fucking text editors nowadays
vim: "we are now allowing slop"
neovim: "we are allowing slop and are also fascists"
emacs, months later: "we would totally accept slop, and also, we're super cool with slave labor (software freedom is more important than human freedom (except mine, obviously))")
@glyph @aud @ariadne the response sounds worse to me than "slavery is OK." More like "slavery is somebody else's problem." Gosh this code was written by forced labor, that's terrible. Somebody should do something. Anyways thanks for the patch and copyright assignment, Dolf! We'll get this merged right away!
(Big stinking load of Pontius Pilate not-my-department BS from that dude)
@glyph right? irregardless of his views on LLMs, it is very easy to just not engage with the argument at the very least. nothing made him reply that way.
@ariadne @gsuberland holy crap. Who? What project, or are they responsible for multiple projects, or policy, or…? When? Where?
This is not an expression of doubt. GNU and the FSF have a long and proud tradition of disappointing me greatly. I just need some context to hook it to.
@ariadne @gsuberland following the thread and the person who presented the hypothetical going back to double-check the FSF philosophy pages, then having the same uncomfortable realization about their priorities many of us do sooner or later.
(the smart ones much sooner)
The core ethos of the GNU project is programmer privilege—that they should get to play with all the toys.
@ariadne @randomgeek @gsuberland my favorite excerpt from this exchange:
There's a lot of evil in this world, and we meet it all the time. In
the Free Software movement, we only deal with evil that directly
affects or threatens software freedoms. Fighting the rest should be
left for other arenas.
as if the usage of LLM-generated code does not presently and significantly affect software freedoms (by flooding repositories with insecure garbage and making projects harder to support and maintain, and probably for other reasons i can't think of right now)
@ariadne entirely expected take from the "csam is fine actually" defenders
the stewards of the free software movement, everyone.
and then people wonder why FOSS has a misogyny problem.
@ariadne Time to burn all this shit down and start over.
@ariadne Doubling down, too.
"If we start talking about genocide, that's bad, let's brush it all aside! Don't mix sport and politics!"
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-11/msg00201.html