5 ms·

> What we need is a legal way for companies to keep the data open, but also require OpenAI and friends to pay them for it. inherently not possible as then it w

> What we need is a legal way for companies to keep the data open, but also require OpenAI and friends to pay them for it. inherently not possible as then it would not be "open" to begin with.

bioemerl 3y ago
Open except you have to pay if it gets big enough seems perfectly reasonable to me. I understand the idea, it's not truly open in that case, but so long as the ability to build new things on it and prosper from it is preserved im alright. The key is that it's not doing something like trying to restrict you from using it in a certain way, only requiring you give a fair share of profits. This was, fun fact, the original purpose of patents. They weren't designed to keep things closed and owned by individuals, they were designed to allow people to freely share and make a profit so that ideas could be built on by each other. The patent system is turned into this corrupted terrible mess where things are almost never shared through licensing or payment, and it's just a way to build monopolistic enterprises nowadays. An open source system that allows for this sort of payment would also allow for many many more things to be open when currently the bad actors who will build and take that work and just never pay you back for it.
josephcsible 3y ago
There are ways to require payment for some uses of things that are legitimately open. As an example, consider the practice of selling exceptions to the GPL, as is done for Qt.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  > As an example, consider the practice of selling exceptions to the GPL, as is done for Qt. There are people who do not consider that "open". See the whole debacle about what exactly constitutes "open source"
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > There are people who do not consider that "open". Who? Even Richard Stallman is okay with what they do: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Richard Stallman isn't necessarily the sole authority on such things. Consider creative common vs. AGPL. Is CockroachDB "open"? etc. In any case the software world has changed drastically since that article has been published.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        Those all seem black and white. Creative Commons' NC and ND licenses are not open, but the rest are. The AGPL is open. CockroachDB is not.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        you are not understanding. why is it not open? Who is the authority of "open". Why is CockroachDB not open? I can see their source on GitHub. "open" is not like 1+1=2. ultimately it is arbitrary. one definition of open is "to make available", by that definition all of them, including CockroachDB are "open". open does not necessarily mean you can use it, just like how an open door does not necessarily mean you can enter the house. in any case, we can agree to disagree.
        josephcsible 3y ago
        You're confusing "open" with "visible".
        endisneigh 3y ago
        I literally quoted a definition from Webster for "open". let's just stop this pedantry. I'm going to go back to "Open"AI.
  - Flimm 3y ago
    "Open" is a pretty vague word which could mean all sorts of things. "Open source" is defined by the Open Source definition according to the OSI [1]. In saying that, I realize that every couple of years somebody tries to claim that their understanding of the term "open source" should trump the one the community has settled on. I personally am not ready to acquiesce to this semantic drift, at least, not yet. [1] - https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      It's not even real semantic drift. It's basically the astroturfing version of it. The people trying to change the meaning are doing so because they want to capitalize on its good name without meeting the true definition.
- renonce 3y ago
  Does this prevent any external contributions in GPL?
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    It means external contributors need to agree to a CLA for their changes to be incorporated into upstream Qt.

> What we need is a legal way for companies to keep the data open, but also require OpenAI and friends to pay them for it. inherently not possible as then it would not be "open" to begin with.

bioemerl 3y ago

Open except you have to pay if it gets big enough seems perfectly reasonable to me. I understand the idea, it's not truly open in that case, but so long as the ability to build new things on it and prosper from it is preserved im alright. The key is that it's not doing something like trying to restrict you from using it in a certain way, only requiring you give a fair share of profits. This was, fun fact, the original purpose of patents. They weren't designed to keep things closed and owned by individuals, they were designed to allow people to freely share and make a profit so that ideas could be built on by each other. The patent system is turned into this corrupted terrible mess where things are almost never shared through licensing or payment, and it's just a way to build monopolistic enterprises nowadays. An open source system that allows for this sort of payment would also allow for many many more things to be open when currently the bad actors who will build and take that work and just never pay you back for it.

josephcsible 3y ago

There are ways to require payment for some uses of things that are legitimately open. As an example, consider the practice of selling exceptions to the GPL, as is done for Qt.

endisneigh 3y ago
> As an example, consider the practice of selling exceptions to the GPL, as is done for Qt. There are people who do not consider that "open". See the whole debacle about what exactly constitutes "open source"
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > There are people who do not consider that "open". Who? Even Richard Stallman is okay with what they do: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Richard Stallman isn't necessarily the sole authority on such things. Consider creative common vs. AGPL. Is CockroachDB "open"? etc. In any case the software world has changed drastically since that article has been published.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      Those all seem black and white. Creative Commons' NC and ND licenses are not open, but the rest are. The AGPL is open. CockroachDB is not.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        you are not understanding. why is it not open? Who is the authority of "open". Why is CockroachDB not open? I can see their source on GitHub. "open" is not like 1+1=2. ultimately it is arbitrary. one definition of open is "to make available", by that definition all of them, including CockroachDB are "open". open does not necessarily mean you can use it, just like how an open door does not necessarily mean you can enter the house. in any case, we can agree to disagree.
        josephcsible 3y ago
        You're confusing "open" with "visible".
        endisneigh 3y ago
        I literally quoted a definition from Webster for "open". let's just stop this pedantry. I'm going to go back to "Open"AI.
- Flimm 3y ago
  "Open" is a pretty vague word which could mean all sorts of things. "Open source" is defined by the Open Source definition according to the OSI [1]. In saying that, I realize that every couple of years somebody tries to claim that their understanding of the term "open source" should trump the one the community has settled on. I personally am not ready to acquiesce to this semantic drift, at least, not yet. [1] - https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    It's not even real semantic drift. It's basically the astroturfing version of it. The people trying to change the meaning are doing so because they want to capitalize on its good name without meeting the true definition.
renonce 3y ago
Does this prevent any external contributions in GPL?
- josephcsible 3y ago
  It means external contributors need to agree to a CLA for their changes to be incorporated into upstream Qt.