Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @cwebber@social.coop
Christine Lemmer-Webber@cwebber@social.coop (2026-10-15 04:37:13)
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
---Reply---
Bradley M. Kühn@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org (2026-10-15 20:27:22)
(1/2) IMO @cwebber has made a strawperson argument, because I don't know anyone (at least, anyone who is serious about #FOSS policy & how its impacted by LLM-gen-AI) who says “nobody cares about attribution requirements”.
I can only speak for my own position, but my position (based on 30 years of community observation) is that (a) attribution is not particularly important to most *who choose* **non**-copyleft, & (b) attribution *alone* never had a particularly good enforcement hook.…
#AI #LLM
Reply
---Replies---
trashHeap :hehim: :verified_gay:@trashheap@tech.lgbt (2026-10-15 20:49:55)
@bkuhn @cwebber
Maybe ive been reading too much into some words; or maybe Ive misunderstood.
BUT some of your conversations and comments on LLMs to me and others have had a distinct "attribution is going to be fucked in a post-LLM world, the best we can hope for is to preserve copyleft" vibe to it.
I would be hard pressed to find an example in our own comment history; as my toots self destruct after a few months. BUT it's definitely come up.
Anyway; am I wrong in that sentiment? Do you think there is a way forward with some of these LLM concerns preserving attribution?