5 ms·

Is there anything specific about the use restrictions that is problematic, or the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place? It seems to me that the r

Is there anything specific about the use restrictions that is problematic, or the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place? It seems to me that the restrictions are sensible given the current climate around ethical use of AI.

jchw 2y ago
Something either meets a definition of the term "open source" or it does not. It's not enough for the restrictions to seem reasonable. That doesn't mean that only open source things should be allowed to exist, just that things which are not open source should not be called open source.
- pixl97 2y ago
  >a definition of the term Who's definition. Mine, yours, your uncle Bobs? There is no legally defined version of the term, and the term is not trademarked/registered so at this point it is a free for all. Feel free to engage in some court cases to lock the term down at your expense.
  - iFire 2y ago
    https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Open_Source_Initiative_Trademark_Policy https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Open_Source_Init... Here's the FAQ.
    - pants2 2y ago
      These are the guidelines for using "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", and the OSI logo. In other words, this is the OSI's definition of their version of open source, but the term "open source" has been around for much longer than OSI.
      - bradleyjg 2y ago
        How much longer?
        Mtinie 2y ago
        “The first example of free and open-source software is believed to be the A-2 system, developed at the UNIVAC division of Remington Rand in 1953,[6] which was released to customers with its source code.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#:~:text=The%20first%20example%20of%20free,customers%20with%20its%20source%20code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sou....
        jchw 2y ago
        That doesn't suggest they used the term "open source".
        bradleyjg 2y ago
        Looks like not much: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
    - oarsinsync 2y ago
      That's the FAQ relating to the use of the OSI trademark. You might be better off linking to the definition of open source, per the OSI, since 2006: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Eitherway, this is why open source zealots tend to specifically say F/LOSS (free / libre open source software), to avoid any ambiguity with people who like to claim 'open source' is ambiguous and easily conflated with 'source available'. ...That there are so many of them proves their own point, I guess!
  - jchw 2y ago
    Who's definition of definition? Who's definition of uncle? Who's definition of term? Who's definition of trademark? Who's definition of "free for all"? Who's definition of expense? There is no true absolute definition of anything, there is at best consensus. And yet, somehow, we are able to communicate with each-other. There isn't really much of a catch 22 here, because there's relatively little good faith debate about the definition of open source actually. The OSI definition exists and it's the definition that is most accepted by the people who use the term. If the amount of disagreement necessary to justify this line of question is "any at all," then there's legitimately no meaningful definition of any word. By all means, feel free to debate the definition of open source, with the knowledge that technically there is no absolute definition. I will not be participating. All this sort of pedantry serves to do is try to derail valid points. If you want a different definition, pick a different term.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      >Who's definition of trademark? I mean, if you want to argue the point, I live in the US where we have a very large stack of case law that defines the definition of trademark, in which if you violate said trademark cases in a court will occur against you. And if you act belligerent about it, the court will dispatch a guy with a gun. So I recommend asking the guy with the gun (that is the right of the state to be sole arbiter of violence). Now, as it comes to the term open source, there is a very wide range of accepted behavior that you can get away with when using the term before a guy with a gun shows up and asks you to stop regardless of what you or the OSI says.
      - jchw 2y ago
        Yeah, but that's a pretty U.S. centric point of view. People outside the U.S. may not care about our definition of trademark. > Now, as it comes to the term open source, there is a very wide range of accepted behavior that you can get away with when using the term before a guy with a gun shows up and asks you to stop regardless of what you or the OSI says. So the definition of words is defined by if people shoot you if you misuse them? How are we even communicating right now if that's the only way words have any concrete definition? Also, I may be behind on my knowledge of U.S. law, but I don't think they enforce trademark law by firing squad.
simonw 2y ago
The biggest problem with the Gemma license is that it requires you to agree to an Acceptable Use Policy that can be updated at any time, and any updates have to be obeyed too. This means you could build something on the model today which becomes disallowed tomorrow.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  I'd say the biggest problem is the pretense that they have a copyright at all.

jchw 2y ago

Something either meets a definition of the term "open source" or it does not. It's not enough for the restrictions to seem reasonable. That doesn't mean that only open source things should be allowed to exist, just that things which are not open source should not be called open source.

pixl97 2y ago
>a definition of the term Who's definition. Mine, yours, your uncle Bobs? There is no legally defined version of the term, and the term is not trademarked/registered so at this point it is a free for all. Feel free to engage in some court cases to lock the term down at your expense.
- iFire 2y ago
  https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Open_Source_Initiative_Trademark_Policy https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Open_Source_Init... Here's the FAQ.
  - pants2 2y ago
    These are the guidelines for using "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", and the OSI logo. In other words, this is the OSI's definition of their version of open source, but the term "open source" has been around for much longer than OSI.
    - bradleyjg 2y ago
      How much longer?
      - Mtinie 2y ago
        “The first example of free and open-source software is believed to be the A-2 system, developed at the UNIVAC division of Remington Rand in 1953,[6] which was released to customers with its source code.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#:~:text=The%20first%20example%20of%20free,customers%20with%20its%20source%20code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sou....
        jchw 2y ago
        That doesn't suggest they used the term "open source".
      - bradleyjg 2y ago
        Looks like not much: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
  - oarsinsync 2y ago
    That's the FAQ relating to the use of the OSI trademark. You might be better off linking to the definition of open source, per the OSI, since 2006: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Eitherway, this is why open source zealots tend to specifically say F/LOSS (free / libre open source software), to avoid any ambiguity with people who like to claim 'open source' is ambiguous and easily conflated with 'source available'. ...That there are so many of them proves their own point, I guess!
- jchw 2y ago
  Who's definition of definition? Who's definition of uncle? Who's definition of term? Who's definition of trademark? Who's definition of "free for all"? Who's definition of expense? There is no true absolute definition of anything, there is at best consensus. And yet, somehow, we are able to communicate with each-other. There isn't really much of a catch 22 here, because there's relatively little good faith debate about the definition of open source actually. The OSI definition exists and it's the definition that is most accepted by the people who use the term. If the amount of disagreement necessary to justify this line of question is "any at all," then there's legitimately no meaningful definition of any word. By all means, feel free to debate the definition of open source, with the knowledge that technically there is no absolute definition. I will not be participating. All this sort of pedantry serves to do is try to derail valid points. If you want a different definition, pick a different term.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    >Who's definition of trademark? I mean, if you want to argue the point, I live in the US where we have a very large stack of case law that defines the definition of trademark, in which if you violate said trademark cases in a court will occur against you. And if you act belligerent about it, the court will dispatch a guy with a gun. So I recommend asking the guy with the gun (that is the right of the state to be sole arbiter of violence). Now, as it comes to the term open source, there is a very wide range of accepted behavior that you can get away with when using the term before a guy with a gun shows up and asks you to stop regardless of what you or the OSI says.
    - jchw 2y ago
      Yeah, but that's a pretty U.S. centric point of view. People outside the U.S. may not care about our definition of trademark. > Now, as it comes to the term open source, there is a very wide range of accepted behavior that you can get away with when using the term before a guy with a gun shows up and asks you to stop regardless of what you or the OSI says. So the definition of words is defined by if people shoot you if you misuse them? How are we even communicating right now if that's the only way words have any concrete definition? Also, I may be behind on my knowledge of U.S. law, but I don't think they enforce trademark law by firing squad.

simonw 2y ago

The biggest problem with the Gemma license is that it requires you to agree to an Acceptable Use Policy that can be updated at any time, and any updates have to be obeyed too. This means you could build something on the model today which becomes disallowed tomorrow.

Hizonner 2y ago
I'd say the biggest problem is the pretense that they have a copyright at all.