Aww come on. There’s plenty to be mad at Zuckerberg about, but releasing Llama under a semi-permissive license was a massive gift to the world. It gave independent researchers access to a working LLM for the first time. For example, Deepseek got their start messing around with Llama derivatives back in the day (though, to be clear, their MIT-licensed V3 and R1 models are not Llama derivatives).
As for open training data, its a good ideal but I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility for any organization that wants to build a workable LLM. These things use trillions of documents in training, and no matter how hard you try to clean the data, there’s definitely going to be something lawyers can find to sue you over. No organization is going to open themselves up to the liability. And if you gimp your data set, you get a dumb AI that nobody wants to use.
No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?
No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.
It’s either open for everyone, or it isn’t open.
And that’s literally what the article says lol I don’t know why you were downvoted.
Emily Omier, a well-regarded open-source start-up consultant, emphasized that open source is a binary standard set by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), not a spectrum. "Either you’re open source, or you are not.
deleted by creator
I suppose that both cases apply here. He’s saying that you either comply with an open source license that’s defined by the OSI or you don’t. That includes the source code to be available yes, but the article also mentions Meta license has a restriction:
if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you’ll have to pay Meta to use it. That’s not open source. Period.
From my understanding, you can’t take an open source license, add random restrictions and still call it open source (“if it’s a corporation it needs to pay a % fee to me”). It doesn’t matter if 98% of the license is open source, at that point your software simply isn’t open source anymore.
You can definitely have multiple licenses, such as Qt does to allow statically linking it and to modify it without distributing the source code, but that simply isn’t an open source one.
deleted by creator
No, not in the way GP wrote. You’re not allowed to have your license discriminate between users, so you’d have to sell your software to everyone, not just big companies.
Either no one pays, or everyone pays.
Open source software can be sold at different prices to different customers, and still remain open source. Open source software can also be sold only to certain types of customers, and still remain open source. Who the developer decides to sell or distribute the software to, and at what price, is unrelated to how the software is licensed.
However, because the Open Source Definition prohibits open source software licenses from discriminating against “any person or group of persons”, the customers who buy open source software cannot be restricted from reselling or redistributing the software to any other individual or organization.
Right, which means that you practically cannot give open source software for free to non-corporations while selling it to corporations while still being fully open source, as the corporations can simply get it for free from any non-corporation.
Exactly!
I appreciate the clarification, thank you!
If you are referring to licenses that prohibit commercial use or prevent certain types of users from using the software, those licenses are not open source because they “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor”.
For example, if a developer offers their software in a source-available “community” version that is restricted to non-commercial use and a proprietary “enterprise” version, neither the community version nor the enterprise version is open source. On the other hand, if a developer uses an open core licensing model by offering an open source “community” version and a proprietary “enterprise” version, the community version is open source while the enterprise version is not.
I don’t get it. What would they redefine it to?
Ask “OpenAI”
Did you read the article?
If people could stop redefining words, that would go a long way to fixing our current strife.
Not a total solution, but it would clarify the discussion. I loathe people who redefine and weaponize words.
I have some Aladeen news for you my friend
deleted by creator
Because he’s a massive douche?
How about a no.
Yes
I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.
Looking at any picture of mark suckerberg makes you believe that they are very much ahead with AI and robotics.
Either way, fuck Facebook, stop trying to ruin everything good in the world.
Because he’s an insecure and greedy child.
deleted by creator
You’re right, he’s a very complex asshole, indeed!
A friend of mine worked on the team that wrote the EU AI legislation. He is a fucking genius and so are his colleagues. There is little chance he can simply “change the definition of open source”. He might be able to challenge the EU definition in court and postpone paying,but be will pay.
The brussels bureaucracy is a absolutely fed up with US tech bro antics by now and both Microsoft and Google have already learned their lesson. Zuckerbergs Meta still tries to resist,but he will fall as well.
Funnily this is absolutely speed up by their antics in the US as this leads to more and more lawmakers here realising that the European societies need to be protected from them the same way it needs to be protected from China.
Money
He is definitely in the same list as Trump and Elon Musk.
Fuck off, Fuckerberg.
Is it for control, money? Of course it is.
Kinda funny how when mega corps can benefit from the millions upon millions of developer hours that they’re not paying for they’re all for open source. But when the mega corps have to ante up (with massive hardware purchases out of reach of any of said developers) they’re suddenly less excited about sharing their work.
I’ve been begging my company to commit to 1% of our revenue toward open source software we use.
It would be life changing for many of these devs.
I’m begging for far less, like 0.001%.
Very much unsuccessful so far.
You are describing parasitic behavior
A cancer does this also.
deleted by creator
