> I view this as an unmitigated good.

Then I don't think you've thought it through.

This entire software ecosystem depends on volunteering and cooperation. It demands respect of the people doing the work. Adhering to their licensing terms is the payment they demand for the work they do.

If you steal their social currency, they may just walk away for good, and nobody will pick up the slack for you. And if you're a whole society of greedy little thieves, the future of software will be everyone preciously guarding and hiding their changes to the last open versions of software from some decades ago.

You should read Bruce Perens' testimony in the Jacobsen v. Katzer case that explained all this (and determined that licensing terms are enforceable, and you can't just say "his is open mine is open what's the difference?")

https://web.archive.org/web/20100331083827/http://perens.com...

> I view this as an unmitigated good. Open source every damn thing.

Agree, I said this in another comment, AI-generated anything should be public domain. Public data in, public domain out.

This train wreck in slow motion of AI slowly eroding the open web is no good, let's rip the bandaid.

Open sourcing all the things sounds fun right up until you hit the point where clean room claims collapse under real legal cross-examination. If you think companies with money on the line are just going to roll over and accept it all as fair play I'd like to introduce you to the concept of discovery at $900/hr. If your business model is a legal speedrun you better budget harder than you code.

Open source is good, washing open source licences is very bad.

I publish under AGPL and if someone ever took my project and washed it to MIT I would probably just take all my code offline forever. Fuck that.