4 ms·

Obligatory "Stallman Was Right." Once again: for those who are new here. There is Free Software, which has a usefully strict definition. And there is Open So

by jrm4 2y ago

Obligatory "Stallman Was Right." Once again: for those who are new here. There is Free Software, which has a usefully strict definition. And there is Open Source, the business-friendly -- but consequently looser -- other thing. You can like one or both, they both have advantages and drawbacks. But you cannot insist that "Open Source" has a very strict definition. It just doesn't. That's why the whole Free Software thing is needed, and IMHO, more important.

j_maffe 2y ago
I agree except for your opinion in the end. But I know you're not alone in this opinion and it has been discussed to death. At this point it's more political than anything else in CS.
- jrm4 2y ago
  The age of an opinion is not in ANY WAY an indicator of how important it is, nor does reducing it to being "political." Statements like this remind me that I really need to KEEP GOING with this.
ensignavenger 2y ago
Open Source has every bit as strict of a definition as Free Software. Open Source as a term was coined and popularized by the OSI. The term may have occasionally been used in different contexts prior to the OSI, but it was never commonly applied to software before that. One could argue that the OSI should have gotten a trademark on the term. But the FSF doesn't have a trademark on the term "free Software" either, so the terms have approximately equal legal protections. Meta using the term "open source" to apply to their model data when their license isn't an open source license is dishonest at best.
- jrm4 2y ago
  I think I agree that they shouldn't use "open source," but again, this confusion highlights that you have to put in work when it comes to this topic. Free Software has the GPL, and all its related, healthy controversy. It's not perfectly clear, but it's far more battle-tested than the much more nebulous "Open source." People who like "free software" put in work, and better understood that, to some extent, you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Open Source" is much more about a whole lot (to me, naive) wishful thinking. (The OSI is a bunch of companies in a trenchcoat, the creators of the GPL were more principled.)
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    The FSF accepts a lot more licenses than just the GPL family of licenses as free software. As for the OSI, I don't think they have ever hidden who they are, how the organization is ran, etc. https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about I just noticed they are currently discussing what "Open Source AI" should mean. You can join in and add your thoughts tot he discussion.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Sure, but you can't give something away for free that you don't own. What people complaining about LLama not being open source are talking about is the training data, and that isn't something that Meta owns for the most part.

by jrm4 2y ago

j_maffe 2y ago

I agree except for your opinion in the end. But I know you're not alone in this opinion and it has been discussed to death. At this point it's more political than anything else in CS.

jrm4 2y ago
The age of an opinion is not in ANY WAY an indicator of how important it is, nor does reducing it to being "political." Statements like this remind me that I really need to KEEP GOING with this.

ensignavenger 2y ago

Open Source has every bit as strict of a definition as Free Software. Open Source as a term was coined and popularized by the OSI. The term may have occasionally been used in different contexts prior to the OSI, but it was never commonly applied to software before that. One could argue that the OSI should have gotten a trademark on the term. But the FSF doesn't have a trademark on the term "free Software" either, so the terms have approximately equal legal protections. Meta using the term "open source" to apply to their model data when their license isn't an open source license is dishonest at best.

jrm4 2y ago
I think I agree that they shouldn't use "open source," but again, this confusion highlights that you have to put in work when it comes to this topic. Free Software has the GPL, and all its related, healthy controversy. It's not perfectly clear, but it's far more battle-tested than the much more nebulous "Open source." People who like "free software" put in work, and better understood that, to some extent, you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Open Source" is much more about a whole lot (to me, naive) wishful thinking. (The OSI is a bunch of companies in a trenchcoat, the creators of the GPL were more principled.)
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  The FSF accepts a lot more licenses than just the GPL family of licenses as free software. As for the OSI, I don't think they have ever hidden who they are, how the organization is ran, etc. https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about I just noticed they are currently discussing what "Open Source AI" should mean. You can join in and add your thoughts tot he discussion.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

Sure, but you can't give something away for free that you don't own. What people complaining about LLama not being open source are talking about is the training data, and that isn't something that Meta owns for the most part.