5 ms·
Meta’s campaign to corrupt the meaning of Open Source was unfortunately very successful and now most people associate releasing the weights with open source.
by andy99 10mo ago
Meta’s campaign to corrupt the meaning of Open Source was unfortunately very successful and now most people associate releasing the weights with open source.
- Blackthorn 10mo agoIt's deliciously ironic how a campaign to dilute the meaning of free software ended up getting diluted itself.
- sho_hn 10mo agoIt's gratifying. I used to tilt at windmills on HN about this and people would be telling me with absolute condescension how the ship had sailed regarding the definition of Open Source, relegating my own life's work to anachronism. People slowly waking up to how daft and hypecycle misusing a term was all along has been amazing.
- archerx 10mo ago[flagged]
- coliveira 10mo agoI think exactly like this. If I created a tool and it were used for free by billion dollar corporations to enrich themselves, I would consider it a personal loss.
- redwall_hp 10mo agoThe GPL is still the answer. Corporate lawyers still avoid it at all costs. The simple requirement that any derivative works bear the same license has always been the key to sustaining the movement, and the whole push toward permissive licensing has been driven by the companies that want to leech.
- fragmede 10mo agoWe must all choose which hill to die on, and I am glad to have met someone else on that same hill, comrade. https://www.downloadableisnotopensource.org/ https://www.downloadableisnotopensource.org/
- ProofHouse 10mo agoThank you! Shame all these big corps that do this forever. Meta #1, Apple # 2, psuedo fake journalists # 3
- singpolyma3 10mo agoReleasing weights is fine but you also need to be allowed to... Use the model :P
- hwers 10mo agoYou’re perfectly free to use it for private use, model output have been deemed public domain
- ordersofmag 10mo agoOr you're free to use the output for commercial use if you can get someone else to use the tool to make the (uncopyrighted) output you want.
- wkat4242 10mo agoIsn't that what groq did basically? Though I'm sure they will shut their shop asap now that Nvidia basically bought them.
- browningstreet 10mo agoNvidia didn’t buy Groq.
- fwip 10mo ago"basically"
- jonners00 10mo agoThey did (unless you're one of the drafters of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, in which case, weirdly, they didn't)
- browningstreet 10mo agoGiven that it's under scrutiny for regulatory bypass, it's not a purchase and is being reviewed as circumventing those very rules. Might not even happen. I know, I'm joking: Trump likes Nvidia, but maybe he'll bump the Chinese tax to 30% to approve this deal? In a way I hope he pulls something like that, to punish Huang for his boot shining manipulations. #iwantRAM
- yieldcrv 10mo agoFOSS = free and open-source software Open Source =/= free or software, just readable so it wasn't a new campaign, it is at best re-appropriating the term open source in the software community in a way communities outside of software have always been using it, in a way that predates software at all, exists in parallel to the software community, and continues to exist now
- ghurtado 10mo agoIn 30 years in tech, I have never once heard anyone use the term "Open Source" to refer to anything other than FOSS. I have also never once heard anyone use the term FOSS outside of the written form. So the opposite of what you said, I guess. You also seem to be saying that the term "open source" existed before software did, so I feel compelled to ask: what do you think "source" stands for in "open source"?
- jfengel 10mo ago"Source" can mean any source of information. The term "open source intelligence", referring to public records, goes back to the 60s.
- oblio 10mo agoIn IT contexts it's used for source code in 99% of situations. Most people have nothing to do with the military or espionage.
- yieldcrv 10mo agoit's about to be 98% and I'm fine with that people need to re-evaluate their relationship with open source instead of as a synonym for FOSS, because it clearly doesn't mean that regardless of the colloquialism and FOSS has an adjective and noun for a reason, its older than the colloquialism this is just a reversion to the mean
- echelon 10mo agoThe OSI definition and "open source purity" is designed by big tech to erode any value layer open source companies could use to threaten them. New movements like "fair source", which is a form of source available + free use + expiring copyright is the ideal license. It's effectively unlimited use for customers and users, but has a baked in "non-compete" preventing low effort third parties from coming in and eating the market of managed services established by the authors. We need to kill open source purity. Especially if we want to erode the hyperscalers that aren't even giving away the magic parts or valuable parts of their kingdoms. Open source purity is a socialist dream while we're still living under the Empire. And it prevents the formation of a salient that can punch through. It's a very low suboptima. I don't see any reason why you would want fair source authors to go "OSI" open other than taking their revenue stream as your own. The license bakes in contingencies in case the authors go out of business to open the license up for community ownership. That's good enough. If these businesses were OSI open, the businessss become unsustainable and impossible to scale into something formidable that could chip away at entirely closed hyperscalers.
- isodev 10mo agoAnd the training data. A truly open source model also includes the training data.
- pjmlp 10mo agoActually it is more like all big corps campaigns that have successfully moved away from anything GPL as much as possible, while pushing for business friendly licenses. Linux kernel and GCC are probably the only thing left they tolerate, and even then, it is less relevant in the cloud, with containers powered by type 1 hypervisors.