Coding Agents Could Make Free Software Matter Again

by rogueleaderr on 3/29/2026, 10:21:34 PM

https://www.gjlondon.com/blog/ai-agents-could-make-free-software-matter-again/

Comments

by: apatheticonion

Having over a decade of open source software I've written freely available online, I actually really appreciate the value that AI && LLMs have provided me.The thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the fact that my works were likely included in the training data and, if it doesn't violate my licenses (GNU 2/3), it certainly feels against the spirit of what I intended when distributing my works.I was made redundant recently "due to AI" (questionable) and it feels like my works in some way contributed to my redundancy where my works contributed to the profits made by these AI megacorps while I am left a victim.I wish I could be provided a dividend or royalty, however small, for my contribution to these LLMs but that will never happen.I've been looking for a copy-left "source available" license that allows me to distribute code openly but has a clause that says "if you would like to use these sources to train an LLM, please contact me and we'll work something out". I haven't yet found that.I'm guessing that such a license would not be enforceable because I am not in the US, but at least it would be nice to declare my intent and who knows what the future looks like.

3/29/2026, 11:01:40 PM

by: floathub

Free software has never mattered more.All the infrastructure that runs the whole AI-over-the-internet juggernaut is essentially all open source.Heck, even Claude Code would be far less useful without grep, diff, git, head, etc., etc., etc. And one can easily see a day where something like a local sort Claude Code talking to Open Weight and Open Source models is the core dev tool.

3/29/2026, 10:30:49 PM

by: est31

If I look around in the FLOSS communities, I see a lot of skepticism towards LLMs. The main concerns are:1. they were trained on FLOSS repositories without consent of the authors, including GPL and AGPL repos2. the best models are proprietary3. folks making low-effort contribution attempts using AI (PRs, security reports, etc).I agree those are legitimate problems but LLMs are the new reality, they are not going to go away. Much more powerful lobbies than the OSS ones are losing fights against the LLM companies (the big copyright holders in media).But while companies can use LLMs to build replacements for GPL licensed code (where those LLMs have that GPL code probably in their training set), the reverse thing can also be done: one can break monopolies open using LLMs, and build so much open source software using LLMs.In the end, the GPL is only a means to an end.

3/30/2026, 12:06:20 AM

by: woeirua

I’m not so sure… what I see as more likely is that coding agents will just strip parts from open source libraries to build bespoke applications for users. Users will be ecstatic because they get exactly what they want and they don’t have to worry about upstream supply chain attacks. Maintainers get screwed because no one contributes back to the main code base. In the end open source software becomes critical to the ecosystem, but gets none of the credit.

3/29/2026, 10:56:11 PM

by: Bockit

It’s such a fun time to have 1+ decade(s) of experience in software. Knowing what simple and good are (for me), and being able to articulate it has let me create so much personal software for myself and my family. It has really felt like turning ideas into reality, about as fast as I can think of them or they can suggest them. And adding specific features, just for our needs. The latest one was a slack canvas replacement, as we moved from slack to self-hosted matrix + element but missed the multiplayer, persistent monthly notes file we used. Even getting matrix set up in the first place was a breeze.$20/month with your provider of choice unlocks a lot.Edit: the underlying point being, yes to the article. Either building upon the foundations of open source to making personal things, or just modifying a fork for my own needs.

3/29/2026, 10:43:00 PM

by: elif

agree completely. When the megacorps are building hundreds of datacenters and openly talking about plans to charge for software "like a utility," there has never been a clearer mandate for the need for FOSS, and IMO there has never been as much momentum behind it either.these are exciting times, that are coming despite any pessimism rooted in our out-dated software paradigms.

3/30/2026, 12:16:51 AM

by: theturtletalks

5 years ago, I set out to build an open-source, interoperable marketplace powered by open-source SaaS. It felt like a pipe dream, but AI has made the dream into fruition. People are underestimating how much AI is a threat to rent seeking middlemen in every industry.

3/29/2026, 11:05:33 PM

by: agentultra

I think it will wall people off from software.I don’t know what SaaS has to do with FOSS. The point of FOSS was to allow me to modify the software I run on my system. If the device drivers for some hardware I depend on are no longer supported by the company I bought it from, if it’s open source, I can modify and extend the software myself.The Copy Left licenses ensure that I share my modifications back if I distribute them. It’s a thing for the public good.Agent-based software development walls people off from that. Mostly by ensuring that the provenance of the code it generates is not known and by deskilling people so that they don’t know what to prompt or how to fix their code.

3/29/2026, 11:29:24 PM

by: pdntspa

What's the chance this website is powered by postgresql?

3/29/2026, 10:34:12 PM

by: throwaw12

> SaaS scaled by exploiting a licensing loophole that let vendors avoid sharing their modifications.AI is going to exploit even more: "Given the repository -> Construct tech spec -> Build project based on tech spec"At this stage, I want everyone just close their source, stop working on open source until this issue of licensing gets resolved.Any improvement you make to the open source code will be leveraged in ways you didn't intend it to be used, eventually making you redundant in the process

3/29/2026, 11:07:58 PM

by: SchemaLoad

Maybe, but I don't really believe users can or want to start designing software, if it was even possible which today it isn't really unless you already have software dev skills.That would basically make users a product manager and UX designer, which they aren't really capable of currently. At most they will discover what they think they want isn't what they actually want.

3/29/2026, 10:35:36 PM

by:

3/29/2026, 11:44:33 PM

by:

3/29/2026, 10:57:38 PM

by: vicchenai

The real unlock here isn't users becoming devs, it's maintainers becoming 10x more productive. Most OSS projects die because the maintainer burned out fixing bugs nobody wants to fix. If agents can handle the boring parts (triage, repro, patch obvious stuff) the maintainer can focus on design decisions and reviewing PRs instead of drowning in issues. That changes the economics completely.

3/29/2026, 10:44:38 PM

by: leandro-person

I’m impressed by how current times make us consider so many completely opposite scenarios. I think it can indeed foster progress, but it can also have negative impacts.

3/29/2026, 11:03:49 PM

by: heliumtera

Oh yeah, sure, nothing scream freedom louder than following anthropic and openai suggestions without a second thought.

3/29/2026, 10:46:00 PM

by: zephen

The article makes zero sense to me.It compares and contrasts open source and free software, and then gives an example of how free software is better than closed software.But if the premise of the article, that the agent will take the package you pick and adapt it to your needs, is correct, then honestly the agent won't give a rat's ass whether the starting point was free source or open source.

3/29/2026, 11:13:00 PM

by: we4a

First of all, free software still matters. Then, being a slave to a $200 subscription to a oligarch application that launders other people's copyright is not what Stallman envisioned.The AI propaganda articles are getting more devious my the minute. It's not just propaganda---it's Bernays-level manipulation!

3/29/2026, 11:09:03 PM

by:

3/29/2026, 11:08:09 PM

by: jongjong

Unfortunately for me, I believe that the algorithms won't allow me to get exposure for my work no matter how good it is so there is literally no benefit for me to do open source. Though I would love to, I'm not in a position to work for free. Exposure is required to monetize open source. It has to reach a certain scale of adoption.The worst part is building something open source, getting positive feedback, helping a couple of startups and then some big corporation comes along and implements a similar product and then everyone gets forced by their bosses to use the corporate product against their will and people eventually forget your product exists because there are no high-paying jobs allowing people to use it.

3/29/2026, 11:04:43 PM

by: threethirtytwo

I think the opposite. It will make all software matter less.If trendlines continue... It will be faster for AI to vibe code said software to your customized specifications than to sign up for a SaaS and learn it."Claude, create a project management tool that simplifies jira, customize it to my workflow."So a lot of apps will actually become closed source personalized builds.

3/29/2026, 10:31:43 PM

by:

3/29/2026, 10:28:32 PM

by: FergusArgyll

tl-didn't finish but I absolutely do this already. Much of the software I use is foss and codex adjusts it to my needs. Sometimes it's really good software and I end up adding something that already exists. Whatever, tokens are free...

3/29/2026, 10:47:11 PM

by: MeetRickAI

[dead]

3/30/2026, 12:14:27 AM

by: clawfund