Petition to the Open Source Initiative: Publish the Full 2025 Election Results

Post by pabs3 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 2:09 AM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #47

olalonde wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They allow a major component of the model, the data, to be withheld.

Post by pabs3 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 2:23 AM UTC

nofriend wrote: post #52

pabs3 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only withheld, but also completely proprietary, not modifiable nor redistributable.

Nobody owns their data. They just scrape the internet, or pirate massive troves of books. Just forcing companies to get a license to all the data they use, let alone an open license, would be a massive impediment to the development of open models.

Post by nativeit » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 7:04 AM UTC

bsnnkv wrote: post #9

lolinder wrote: post #8

As a reminder, the OSI was formed as a corporate-friendly foil to Stallman's FSF. This is how the OSI once described its own history on its website: > The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. They brainstormed about…

> 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

Post by tedivm » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 1:12 PM UTC

pabs3 wrote: post #53

nofriend wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owns their data. They just scrape the internet, or pirate massive troves of books. Just forcing companies to get a license to all the data they use, let alone an open license, would be a massive impediment to the development of open models.

It is definitely doable to get openly licensed data, you just have to do it via voluntary participation of crowdsourced data acquisition programs. For example the RNNoise model was retrained from such crowdsourced data.

Post by dec0dedab0de » Mon, Apr 28, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #38

johannes1234321 wrote: post #37

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.