True, but like in a working society, many things are being done even if not explicitly requested by some regulation because it's obvious that they help improving the society for everyone. For me it's pretty automatic, I have money for or coming in thanks to my project? The first thing I will do is giving back to the dependencies that made my project possible, I don't even need to think about it too hard.
And let me add also this, upstream decided that for whatever reason they don't want code generated by AI? It's their project, they are free to decide to follow this route, who cares. Pretty pathetic to whine about it on X, though.
You know how some countries have high-trust societies even without specific norms and others definitely don't? Same thing. Opensource needs high-trust and a community that punish some undesirable behaviors and who doesn't follow unwritten, but obvious, rules.
> so Asahi loses the ability to forbid downstream users from using AI to modify the source code.
Did anyone suggest they want to do this? It's in their own Asahi that they don't want AI.
It’s because they are not stating what is their true motivation.
What you are seeing is not primarily open source enthusiasts advocating licenses based on merit.
You’re seeing open-source being used as a store-front for leftist politics - and their primary issue is that Omarchy, AI and DHH is not on “their” side politically.
And thus they want to restrict open-source and lock it down so that (more) politically neutral or AI-friendly projects can’t use their code.
Hope this helps.
I’m jumping in here but I really don’t understand this perspective. The license doesn’t say that downstream must be a good neighbor. In fact it explicitly avoids any restrictions on how downstream code is used. If you’re not happy with that then the GPL is not the right license. Holding others up to an unwritten standard (which is inherently not enforceable) is a recipe for disappointment.