SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Vibe Coding Is Killing Open Source Software, Researchers Argue:
According to a new study from a team of researchers in Europe, vibe coding is killing open-source software (OSS) and it's happening faster than anyone predicted.
Thanks to vibe coding, a colloquialism for the practice of quickly writing code with the assistance of an LLM, anyone with a small amount of technical knowledge can churn out computer code and deploy software, even if they don't fully review or understand all the code they churn out. But there's a hidden cost. Vibe coding relies on vast amounts of open-source software, a trove of libraries, databases, and user knowledge that's been built up over decades.
Open-source projects rely on community support to survive. They're collaborative projects where the people who use them give back, either in time, money, or knowledge, to help maintain the projects. Humans have to come in and fix bugs and maintain libraries.
Vibe coders, according to these researchers, don't give back.
The study Vibe Coding Kills Open Source, takes an economic view of the problem and asks the question: is vibe coding economically sustainable? Can OSS survive when so many of its users are takers and not givers? According to the study, no.
"Our main result is that under traditional OSS business models, where maintainers primarily monetize direct user engagement...higher adoption of vibe coding reduces OSS provision and lowers welfare," the study said. "In the long-run equilibrium, mediated usage erodes the revenue base that sustains OSS, raises the quality threshold for sharing, and reduces the mass of shared packages...the decline can be rapid because the same magnification mechanism that amplifies positive shocks to software demand also amplifies negative shocks to monetizable engagement. In other words, feedback loops that once accelerated growth now accelerate contraction."
[...] According to Koren, vibe-coders simply don't give back to the OSS communities they're taking from. "The convenience of delegating your work to the AI agent is too strong. There are some superstar projects like Openclaw that generate a lot of community interest but I suspect the majority of vibe coders do not keep OSS developers in their minds," he said. "I am guilty of this myself. Initially I limited my vibe coding to languages I can read if not write, like TypeScript. But for my personal projects I also vibe code in Go, and I don't even know what its package manager is called, let alone be familiar with its libraries."
The study said that vibe coding is reducing the cost of software development, but that there are other costs people aren't considering. "The interaction with human users is collapsing faster than development costs are falling," Koren told 404 Media. "The key insight is that vibe coding is very easy to adopt. Even for a small increase in capability, a lot of people would switch. And recent coding models are very capable. AI companies have also begun targeting business users and other knowledge workers, which further eats into the potential 'deep-pocket' user base of OSS."
This won't end well. "Vibe coding is not sustainable without open source," Koren said. "You cannot just freeze the current state of OSS and live off of that. Projects need to be maintained, bugs fixed, security vulnerabilities patched. If OSS collapses, vibe coding will go down with it. I think we have to speak up and act now to stop that from happening."
He said that major AI firms like Anthropic and OpenAI can't continue to free ride on OSS or the whole system will collapse. "We propose a revenue sharing model based on actual usage data," he said. "The details would have to be worked out, but the technology is there to make such a business model feasible for OSS."
[...] "Popular libraries will keep finding sponsors," Koren said. "Smaller, niche projects are more likely to suffer. But many currently successful projects, like Linux, git, TeX, or grep, started out with one person trying to scratch their own itch. If the maintainers of small projects give up, who will produce the next Linux?"
arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15494
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Wednesday February 11, @03:45AM (1 child)
There are no "FOSS" projects - "FOSS" is term of the weak willed, who cannot hold their own opinion and therefore try to be neutral between the corporate bootlicking of "open source" and the freedom of free software - but it even fails to be neutral; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [gnu.org]
You now have been enlightened and now can think for yourself; will you stand for freedom, lick corporate boot or try to be neutral between both with "FLOSS"?
"open source" projects don't typically care much about keeping the copyright in order - only that it's good enough that a corporate is practically able to take it and turn it into proprietary software (the idea is that the corporate also hires the developer(s) - but sucked in - that almost never happens).
Yes, some "open source" projects by a business have a "CLA" policy for the gratis labor, so that the business remains the complete copyright holder (paired with a strong license, that ensures only the business can legally release a proprietary version) and of course, you can only surrender your copyright, if you are the copyright holder (and you can't surrender someone else's copyright for 3rd party software).
Free software projects do not require that you are the copyright holder of the changes, as that would be a proprietary requirement - the "NASA Open Source Agreement" is a proprietary license for that reason; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASA [gnu.org]
What is required is that you are either the copyright holder of the changes (and therefore are able to license under the project license), or that 3rd party changes are under a compatible free software license, with complete copyright information, including the license, the list of copyright holders and copyright years - so it is clear that x file(s) are under y license from z copyright holder(s).
LLM's meanwhile won't include any of the copyright information of the code that is copy-pasted and even if the prompt requests the license and a license is output, that will almost always be the wrong license
Piracy requires a boat, what occurred and is occurring is a case of mass copyright infringement, seeking profit.
(Score: 2) by jb on Wednesday February 11, @06:57AM
To a certain extent, you're preaching to the choir. Note that before I added the "F" the discussion above was just OSS. But I actually prefer the term FOSS, mostly because both the philosophical motivations (free software) and the economic ones (OSS) matter.
Agreed, yes absolutely that happens a lot too and there are no legal issues with doing so ... but that's nothing like the scenario that TFS was on about.
My point exactly. Which is why any FOSS project would be crazy to accept any contribution "written" by an LLM. Doing so would be a violation of the attribution clause of even the most permissive (ISC, MIT or 2-clause BSD) licenses. Note also that under many countries' implementations of copyright law attribution counts as a "moral right" which (unlike the substantive copyright) often cannot be assigned.
I wish. It would be so much simpler if we only had to dealing with a bunch of crooks sailing around on the high seas. It's relatively simple to get away with killing such brigands. On the other hand I'm pretty sure there's no jurisdiction in which it's legal to do the same to the bunch of crooks who run the companies behind the big LLMs.