41–50 of 61 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
Is there a license that does address that loophole?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the GPLs have done an extremely good job of advancing user freedom, with a few very small asterisks.
> sucked up in corporate interests
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In their view, yes, if you don't conform to their prescriptivist take on the subject. The fact that they have fooled so many people into thinking they own a trademark on a generic phrase is, however, pretty impressive.
Do they own it or not? In the US you can trademark and patent H2O if you insist a bit, so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually owned the actual trademark.
Honest question; what does OSI actually do? I am involved with a number of OS projects and not once has OSI come up in any context, be it compliance, governance, education and so on.
They review licenses, and act as a sort of PR team for the Free Software movement. The whole point is to make Free Software not seem too scary to businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. "Free Software" is a term created by RMS/FSF. "Open Source" was later "formalized" by OSI to differentiate. FSF puts it this way: > Another group uses the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software.” We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom. ht…
The definitions for Free and Open Source Software are semantically identical. The movements have differing philosophical and political stances, but Free Software is automatically also Open Source Software, and vice versa.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They own the trademark of "Open Source" and use it to exercise a right to define which licences are truly open source. Now, I guess they are becoming involved in the question of what it means for an AI model to be open source, hence the politicking Previously, if your project used one of the main OS licences you were good as far as they were concerned. They mainly existed to avoid lawyers coming up with licenses that…
The OSI emphatically does NOT: own the trademark of “Open Source”. They tried, and the USPTO denied their application for same. As such they have any such right to exercise. They own a trademark for “Open Source Initiative”, and attempt to persuade the public that they alone define the term “Open Source”. https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines
Nevertheless, their Open Source Definition is reasonably respected
The Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) is a slap in the face to anyone who has been part of the open source community. Allowing companies to redefine "Open" to allow closed components is a complete betrayal of everything the OSI should stand for, and it was done purely so large companies can pretend their closed models are open.
Where are you seeing that? I just read the definition and it doesn't seem to a allow closed components: > An Open Source AI is an AI system made available under terms and in a way that grant the freedoms to: > Use the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission. > Study how the system works and inspect its components. > Modify the system for any purpose, including to change its output. > Share the…
The Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) is a slap in the face to anyone who has been part of the open source community. Allowing companies to redefine "Open" to allow closed components is a complete betrayal of everything the OSI should stand for, and it was done purely so large companies can pretend their closed models are open.
To be explicit I believe your concern is the fact that they are not requiring that the training data and training methodology they used to generate the open source model be made accessible so that anyone can essentially build the model themselves from raw ingredients right? In other words imagining for a moment that folks have access to the kind of compute necessary to do that. Right? Nevertheless giving people a bui…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be explicit I believe your concern is the fact that they are not requiring that the training data and training methodology they used to generate the open source model be made accessible so that anyone can essentially build the model themselves from raw ingredients right? In other words imagining for a moment that folks have access to the kind of compute necessary to do that. Right? Nevertheless giving people a bui…
It's not just about reproducibility (although I do think that's important), it's about analysis of the model. With traditional software you have a pretty well defined "this code does this", but with machine learning models one of the only ways to validate that bias or propaganda hasn't been inserted during training.