I don't have any answer or opinion on whether the company "is open", I'm not sure how to operationalize that. But what you can say is that some but not all of

I don't have any answer or opinion on whether the company "is open", I'm not sure how to operationalize that. But what you can say is that some but not all of their released products are released with code under open source licenses. Eg: https://github.com/openai/whisper/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/openai/whisper/blob/main/LICENSE (an actual product, to transcribe audio, which it really does extremely well; and it's open source code; released last fall) So that's one sense in which they produce "open" things today. I would personally expect that all of their "openness", from the currently free trial (but not open source) cloud-hosted products, to the code released as open source licenses -- are part of a business strategy to get awareness of the technology and of them as a brand, and buy-in, and can/will be changed at any point if it makes business sense. As we increasingly see with so many companies that start out even all-in with open source. (Say, elasticsearch). I think we should assume almost any for-profit company producing open source is in this category. I think their name is a marketting gimmick to make people assume they are some kind of academic non-profit. I don't know if it's obvious what a Microsoft purchase might do to those plans/timelines. In some ways MS's deep pockets might mean that free and/or open source offerings can persist longer, extend the metaphorical runway. MS will definitely want to be known as the authority on AI, and making sure people keep seeing your stuff to be impressed by it, and making sure it gets used by enough people to stay "the standard" is how you do that.