this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
51 points (91.8% liked)
Opensource
5640 readers
401 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Literally any license that says any derivatives of your work must include attribution, bonus points if you use a license that says derivative works must be shared under the same license, eg GPL ~~or MIT~~.
The AI Bros will take it anyway though and ignore your license, and the courts are very pro-business and AI is like half the US economy at this point, so it's probably all pretty pointless.
They're currently being sued for just that in Doe's v. GitHub et al, which has already been going on for years. Currently its waiting to be scheduled in the 9th circuit, they've already been waiting 18 months.
(Edited to correct, see comment below)
MIT is a permissive license and it doesnt enforce anything.
if you want freedom, use strict licenses like GPL.
Gnu has a great guide on licenses
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
MIT still requires the license and copyright notice to be maintained though, it is why even proprietary software includes an 'open-source licenses' listing somewhere under help / alongside the distribution. Arguably, AI models reproducing a bit of MIT licensed code would be just as much in violation as with any other license.
GPL still gives much better guarantees w.r.t. providing the source code and modifications made thereto, though.
That is a great guide, thanks for the info. Edited my comment to correct.