3 ms·

Why not?

• lmc 7mo ago
  This 'Modified MIT' is not a license that has been through the OSI process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition#Compliant_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition#Com... You can't just add random terms to an existing license and use its name. "Modified MIT: Like MIT but pay us 50 million dollars." Perhaps CC-BY would've been more appropriate.
  • igravious 7mo ago
    Correct again -- CC- applies to data, not code -- weights are data, open weights suggests a creative commons approach … “ CC-BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes. BY Credit must be given to you, the creator. ” it's annoying the open source term is being cargo-culted around and I hate to say it but that ship looks like it has sailed. funny that free software people were infuriated by the open source term and now the open source term is being completely misused in another context
  • tempaccount420 7mo ago
    Ah yes, a document titled "*THE* Open Source Definition", describing *THEIR* definition of open source.
    • array_key_first 7mo ago
      Their definition matters more than most, I mean, anyone can define anything however they like. Hell, Windows is open-source, because I said so. Also, even if it were not for the OSI, this still wouldn't be open source. Because there's no source code available. It's open-weight, which is a different thing. The models weights are, essentially, the "compiled" output. The input and algorithms, we don't know.