51–60 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If 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?
Any 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.
Because prefixing something with the word "Open" to imply that it would be completely transparent (in any context) wasn't even common before the term "Open Source" was invented. When people do that, they're hoping that the goodwill that Open Source has generated will be transferred to them, and they are judged on that basis. "Open" generally had a slightly different meaning: honest.
> A random "initiative"
And when you play stupid, nobody respects your argument. It's self-defeating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-copylef…
The GPL places no restrictions on how you can run the software. All meaningful licenses place restrictions — or, conversely, limit the permissions they grant — on how the code can be used, distributed, integrated with other projects, etc.
But I disagree that the meaning of Open Source is malleable. As others here said, if we want to make a new definition, we should make a new term. In my opinion, in this case, we have. It’s Source Available, which is basically “look, but don’t touch”. And as with other brightly colored things in nature, it’s generally best to avoid it.
You - 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…
Also, can an AI be trained with the leaked source of Windows(R)(C)(TM)?
Any 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…
> Any 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. Freedom 0 is about the freedom to run the software "for any purpose", not "use" the software for any purpose. Training an LLM on source code isn't running the software. (Not sure about the OSD and don't feel like reviewing it.) Anyway, you coul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier 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 question of belief. Maybe words don't mean anything anymore, but certainly legal contracts and licenses do. "Open Source" is a class of licenses approved by the OSI. There are no spirits involved.
You - 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.
Of course, if the code wasn't available in the first place, the AI wouldn't be able to read it. It wouldn't qualify as "open source", but I wonder if OP could have some sort of EULA (or maybe it would be considered an NDA). Something to the effect of "by reading this source code, you agree not to use it as training data for any AI system or model." And then something to make it viral. "You further agree not to allow…