[deleted]
Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
31–40 of 107 posts
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.
that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source;…
> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source
That isn't true. Open source refers to the ability to make use of the source code if you wish, not the ability to send pull requests. SQLite is open source (public domain even!), but does not accept contributions from outside.
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#33[dead]
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#34You - and many other commentors in this thread - misunderstand the legal theory under which AI companies operate. In their view, training their models is allowed under fair use, which means it does not trigger copyright-based licenses at all. You cannot dissuade them with a license.
While I think OP is shortsighted in their desire for an “open source only for permitted use cases” license, it is entirely possible that training will be found to not be fair use, and/or that making and retaining copies for training purposes is not fair use. Perhaps you can’t dissuade AI companies today, but it is possible that the courts will do so in the future. But honestly it’s hard for me to care. I do not think…
Open source except for people who have downvoted any of my comments.
I agree with you though. I get sad when I see people abuse the Commons that everyone contributes to, and I understand that some people want to stop contributing to the Commons when they see that. I just disagree - we benefit more from a flourishing Commons, even if there are free loaders, even if there are exploiters etc.
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.
that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source;…
Open source means the source is open, ie downloadable. It's not that complicated, that can't just be made up to mean something else
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaving aside the sentence case in the title, the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean source which is open to be read freely, and from the context this can clearly be read.
I disagree. They said open source, so I’ll take them at their word that they mean open source. If they meant otherwise, they should’ve said that instead. This is a highly nitpicky topic where terms have important meanings. If we toss that out, it becomes impossible to discuss it.
I've linked elsewhere to the Hippocratic License, which freely refers to itself as open source while specifically being built around refusing licensing based on ethical considerations. OSI don't own the term open source, and the simple and plain meaning of the term is clear to see. Otherwise, we wouldn't consider GPL software to be open source, because it attaches conditions on usage. That even applies to non-copyleft licenses like MIT which demand author attribution. The term open source is best read literally unless someone says "I want an OSI approved license".
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaving aside the sentence case in the title, the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean source which is open to be read freely, and from the context this can clearly be read.
I disagree. They said open source, so I’ll take them at their word that they mean open source. If they meant otherwise, they should’ve said that instead. This is a highly nitpicky topic where terms have important meanings. If we toss that out, it becomes impossible to discuss it.
Indeed it is, but you get it now, right?
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.
that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source;…
> it’s not a random initiative
Arguably it is, in the sense that they didn't actually invent the term; there are many documented pre-OSI uses (including by high-profile folks like Bill Joy) saying "open source" to just mean "source available". And OSI's attempt to trademark the term was rejected.
> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source
That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#39If it’s open source but with an extra restriction then it’s not Open Source: https://opensource.org/osd
You realize that the world changes and we update out language as we go? Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?
> Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?
The word you're looking for is "correct". The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do. If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one, don't misuse an existing term to mean something it doesn't.
Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?
#40Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. You also shouldn't expect for your project/code to be reused by or incorporated into any free or open-source projects, since your license would be incompatible. You can release software under whatever license you want, though whether any restrict…
A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.
The OSI definition of open-source software is recognized by several governments worldwide as definitive and legally binding. What you're describing is source available and that's a very different thing.