洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

Hello! I'm Hong Minhee (洪 民憙), an open source software engineer in my late 30s, living in Seoul, Korea. I'm bisexual and non-binary (they/them), and an enthusiastic advocate of free/open source software and the fediverse.

I work full-time on @fedify, an ActivityPub server framework in TypeScript, funded by @sovtechfund. I'm also the creator of @hollo, a single-user ActivityPub microblog; @botkit, an ActivityPub bot framework; Hackers' Pub, a fediverse platform for software developers; and LogTape, a logging library for JavaScript and TypeScript.

I have a long interest in East Asian languages (CJK) and Unicode. I post mostly in English here, though occasionally in Japanese or in mixed-script Korean (國漢文混用體), a traditional writing style that interleaves Chinese characters with the native Korean alphabet. Wanting to write in that style was actually one of the reasons I joined the fediverse. Feel free to talk to me in English, Korean, Japanese, or even Literary Chinese!

#introduction

はじめまして！ソウル在住の30代後半のオープンソースソフトウェアエンジニア、洪 民憙（ホン・ミンヒ）と申します。バイセクシュアル（bisexual）・ノンバイナリー（non-binary）で、自由・オープンソースソフトウェア（F/OSS）とフェディバース（fediverse）の熱烈な支持者です。

STF（@sovtechfund）の支援を受け、TypeScript用ActivityPubサーバーフレームワーク「@fedify」の開発に専念しています。他にも、おひとり様向けのActivityPubマイクロブログ「@hollo」、ActivityPubボットフレームワーク「@botkit」、ソフトウェア開発者向けフェディバースプラットフォームHackers' Pub、JavaScript・TypeScript用ロギングライブラリLogTapeなどの制作者でもあります。

東アジア言語（いわゆるCJK）とUnicodeにも興味があります。このアカウントでは主に英語で投稿していますが、時々日本語や国漢文混用体（漢字ハングル混じり文）の韓国語でも書いています。実はこの文体で書きたくてフェディバースを始めた、という経緯もあります。日本語、英語、韓国語、漢文でも気軽に話しかけてください！

#自己紹介

安寧(안녕)하세요! 저는 서울에 살고 있는 30代(대) 後半(후반)의 오픈 소스 소프트웨어 엔지니어 洪民憙(홍민희)입니다. 兩性愛者(양성애자)(bisexual)이자 논바이너리(non-binary)이며, 自由(자유)·오픈 소스 소프트웨어(F/OSS)와 聯合宇宙(연합우주)(fediverse)의 熱烈(열렬)한 支持者(지지자)이기도 합니다.

STF(@sovtechfund)의 支援(지원)을 받아 TypeScript用(용) ActivityPub 서버 프레임워크 @fedify 開發(개발)에 專業(전업)으로 任(임)하고 있습니다. 그 外(외)에도 싱글 유저用(용) ActivityPub 마이크로블로그 @hollo, ActivityPub 봇 프레임워크 @botkit, 소프트웨어 開發者(개발자)를 위한 聯合宇宙(연합우주) 플랫폼 Hackers' Pub, JavaScript·TypeScript用(용) 로깅 라이브러리 LogTape 等(등)의 製作者(제작자)이기도 합니다.

東(동)아시아 言語(언어)(이른바 CJK)와 Unicode에도 關心(관심)이 많습니다. 이 計定(계정)에서는 主(주)로 英語(영어)로 포스팅하지만, 때때로 日本語(일본어)나 國漢文混用體(국한문 혼용체) 韓國語(한국어)로도 씁니다. 聯合宇宙(연합우주)에 오게 된 動機(동기) 中(중) 하나가 바로 國漢文混用體(국한문 혼용체)로 글을 쓰고 싶었기 때문이기도 하고요. 韓國語(한국어), 英語(영어), 日本語(일본어), 아니면 漢文(한문)으로도 말을 걸어주세요!

#툿친소 #연친소 #별친소 #자기소개

Here's these posts in blog article form: https://writings.thisismissem.social/how-standards-are-made/

Title: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft
Link: https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

這篇文章討論了 chardet 這個 Python 編碼檢測庫在使用 AI 重寫後，授權和社會倫理問題的爭議。

### 文章翻譯與總結：

2026 年 3 月 9 日，chardet 庫的維護者 Dan Blanchard 發布了第 7.0 版本，此版本比之前快了 48 倍，並支持多核心，且重寫後完全新建，原始代碼相似度低於 1.3%。他聲稱藉由使用 AI（Anthropic 的 Claude）依照 API 和測試套件重寫，因而不受原 LGPL 授權約束，改採 MIT 授權。原作者 Mark Pilgrim 反對此作法，指出 LGPL 規定修改必須維持相同授權，且 AI 重寫並

@hongminhee@hollo.social said

The proposed solution is to split responsibility more aggressively: the C2S server should be nearly stateless and dumb, storing ActivityPub objects without interpreting them, while a separate “client” layer handles indexing, timelines, moderation, and exposes its own API to the frontend running on the user's device. It's a clean separation of concerns on paper.

This is exactly what I say in the talk that I still need to record, and why I was working on that ActivityPDS concept last september.

Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

chardetのMITへの再ライセンスをめぐって、RedisのantirezとFlaskのArmin Ronacher（通称 mitsuhiko）がそれを擁護する文章を書いていたので、自分なりの反論を書いてみました。

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/index.ja.html

Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.

Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

#GPL #LGPL #license #opensource #freesoftware

"Whatever courts eventually decide about AI reimplementation, the question we need to answer first is not a legal one. It is a social one. Do those who take from the commons owe something back?"

#OSS #copyleft #license #software #GenAI

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

An excellent read

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

#copyleft #aislop

@vappster BotKit currently supports only a single bot per instance, but in the future releases, such limitation could be gone. See also this related issue: https://github.com/fedify-dev/botkit/issues/16.

@hyaniner 읽어주셔서 고맙습니다!

Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft by @hongminhee https://lobste.rs/s/52jd6f #law #vibecoding
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

最近(최근) chardet의 MIT 리라이선싱과 關聯(관련)해서 Redis의 antirez와 Flask의 Armin Ronacher(一名(일명) mitsuhiko)가 이를 擁護(옹호)하는 글을 썼는데, 그에 對(대)한 나름대로의 反論(반론)을 써 봤습니다: 〈合法(합법)이면 公正(공정)한가: AI 再具顯(재구현)과 카피레프트의 侵蝕(침식)〉(한글).

Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.

Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

#GPL #LGPL #license #opensource #freesoftware

Hey #ActivityPub friends. Are there any new ActivityPub / Mastodon features I should add to #ActivityBot?

It's a small bot-only ActivityPub server in a single PHP file.

https://gitlab.com/edent/activity-bot/

It can be followed, post images, allow quote posts, etc.

Is there anything else you would like a bot-server to be able to do?

오랜만에 中國(중국)에도 놀러 가고 싶네…

バーガー屋さんのSoul Grillに来た。

高尾山口駅まで来た。

豆腐料理店の空野に来た。

I think this every time, but also I think most of the time it's actually from older versions of mastodon, software that doesn't support the feature or or posts made before the feature existed.

ConfConf 2026 has been announced!

Website: https://confconf.org/

What: A free conference for organisers of conferences around free and open source software and hardware, and the surrounding ecosphere

Dates: June 6&7 2026

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

Cost: free, supported by FOSDEM and Grafana Labs

If you are a conference organiser of a conference in FOSS ecosphere and would like to attend, reach out to request a voucher.

#confconf #conference

@kodingwarrior 좋은 생각!

@soapdog There's a poll-based version specced at https://fediverse.codeberg.page/fep/fep/b06c/, sadly with no notable implementations (wouldn't be interactable by Mastodon etc.), but it's an opportunity to break new ground as an implementer if you know anyone who'd like to experiment with it.

#ActivityPub #FediDev

I wish #ActivityPub was a "pull" protocol instead of a "push" protocol. The way it works, whenever you take an action, it sends that action to all followers. I would prefer if it simply stored them and then let each follower pull them when they see fit.

That would introduce latency and more async comms as your messages wouldn't pop up into someone elses feed until their software fetch the data, but I think it would make it easier to self host.

@smallcircles Thanks for suggestion!

I'm thinking of proposing a #fediverse/social web community track at @COSCUP 2026 (Aug 8–9, Taipei)—think FOSDEM's Social Web devroom, but in East Asia. Before I submit the CFP, I'd love to get a sense of what to call it. What do you think?

(Boosts appreciated!)

#ActivityPub #SocialWeb #fedidev #COSCUP

@silverpill @phnt That's a fair clarification, and worth being precise about on my end too.

I'm not arguing for historical inevitability—I don't think that's a useful frame for anyone here. What I was saying is closer to a personal read of the current situation: a lot of developers already depend on LLMs in their day-to-day work, and that number seems to be growing quickly. That's an observation, not a law of history, and I could be wrong about where it leads.

The NFT comparison is interesting and I won't dismiss it. My intuition is that LLMs are a different kind of thing—they've become embedded in actual workflows in ways NFTs never were—but I hold that loosely. Technologies do fail in unexpected ways.

What I'm more confident about is the narrower point: maintainers have real authority over their own projects, and I think there's more room in that space than “accept everything” or “reject all AI-assisted contributions.” My own approach with Fedify has been to set conditions rather than draw a line: disclose what you used, show you've actually tested it. Whether that's the right call, others can judge: https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md.

@alvan Yeah, C# is already kinda feature creep… 😭

蒙古タンメン中本に来た。

C# 15 & .NET 11 preview 3 finally got discriminated unions!

https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/proposals/unions.md

@silverpill @phnt

@silverpill is right that maintainers hold real authority here, and I want to build on that rather than argue against either of you.

The frustration with LLMs is largely legitimate. But “how does this look to outsiders” is a poor criterion for evaluating ethical concerns; by that standard, feminism looks like lunacy to 4chan. The question is whether the concerns are correct, not whether they're legible to the unconvinced.

That said, I don't think making LLMs socially unacceptable is a viable path, and not just because the adoption curve has run too far. The maintainer's authority is real precisely because it's specific: you decide what enters your project. Refusing AI-assisted contributions is a legitimate choice. But declaring LLM use itself impermissible starts to look like “I only accept patches written in Vim, not IDE-generated code”—a demand that grows harder to justify as the tools become ordinary. As maintainer of Fedify, I've taken a middle path: disclose what you used, show you've tested it yourself, and we're fine. See also https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md.

What worries me more is that the “total rejection vs. total acceptance” framing leaves the actual problem untouched. If we stay inside that binary, OpenAI and the others keep the models, keep the surplus, keep the compute bills externalized onto the climate—with no pressure to change any of it. The ethical problems with LLMs aren't properties of the technology; they're properties of who owns it and under what terms. I've written about this in more depth if it's of interest: Histomat of F/OSS: We should reclaim LLMs, not reject them and a follow-up Acting materialistically in an imperfect world: LLMs as means of production and social relations.