5 ms·

Alas the license is CC-BY-NC 4.0.

by Pandabob 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago
Which is not open source.
- chaxor 3y ago
  I know this is a bit of a meme now in HN, and I agree that GPLv3 is certainly a much better license. However to push back a bit, I would say that at least the license allows researchers to do the important work that needs to be done. It seems that there are a lot of grifters that are making "small businesses" off of LLMs that are pushing the 'not real open source' narrative a bit too much. Open source for allowing research is far more important than allowing some group of script kiddies trying to make a silly LLM app to make a quick buck, and something like GPLv3 is even better in this regard since a company can be founded on it, but completely transparently - which is arguably a bit better than have a 100LoC python script in a completely opaque MIT license that's trying to be used to sell to a company for $$, which is imo highly unethical (not novel or intellectually challenging in the slightest, and therefore not valuable). So yes, open source should be what we strive for, but research is the most important aspect of OSS.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I know this is a bit of a meme now in HN, and I agree that GPLv3 is certainly a much better license. The GPLv3 is certainly an open source license, sure. Better in blanket terms is...not the point I’m making, and I am not arguing that, in this space, all open source licenses are categorically better than non-open source licenses. But, I do think its important to describe licenses accurately and understand the implications of particular licenses. > However to push back a bit, I would say that at least the license allows researchers to do the important work that needs to be done. Yes, as far as sharing research, this is worlds better than OpenAI. And its worth noting that while the usage restrictions aren’t as competition-restricting, the most widely touted successful “open source” model (Stable Diffusion) is also not open source strictly (the license has usage restrictions) though there are some notable truly-open-source models.
  - cozzyd 3y ago
    Yeah, not sure why they didn't choose AGPL or GPL instead of a license meant for documentation...
- perryizgr8 3y ago
  If I can read the source code it is open source.
  - commoner 3y ago
    If you can read the source code, it is source-available. This model is source-available but not open source because CC-BY-NC 4.0 restricts the way the software can be used (noncommercial use only). This is contrary to the Open Source Definition's "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ For transparency and user freedom, CC-BY-NC 4.0 is still better than the proprietary license of OpenAI's closed source models.
    - perryizgr8 3y ago
      I don't agree. My definition of "open source" is that the source is open.
      - ssddanbrown 3y ago
        Just open to viewing? Would you consider stolen and GitHub-posted code as open source? Licenses adhering to the OSD generally ensure open viewing, open use, open modification and open distribution. Stripping that back to just viewing removes a large part of openness that "open source" has been built upon.
      - MaxikCZ 3y ago
        Luckily to prevent everybody interpreting sounds and glyphs as they wish, we -as a civilization- agreed to adhere to certain standards of how things would be interpreted. The same way we agreed that "allow" means can but not must, we agreed what open source means. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are in the right.
stochastimus 3y ago
Funny I came here just to say the exact same thing.
pelorat 3y ago
Expect to see more of that with the EU AI act looming over things.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Alas the license is CC-BY-NC 4.0.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Which is not open source.

chaxor 3y ago
I know this is a bit of a meme now in HN, and I agree that GPLv3 is certainly a much better license. However to push back a bit, I would say that at least the license allows researchers to do the important work that needs to be done. It seems that there are a lot of grifters that are making "small businesses" off of LLMs that are pushing the 'not real open source' narrative a bit too much. Open source for allowing research is far more important than allowing some group of script kiddies trying to make a silly LLM app to make a quick buck, and something like GPLv3 is even better in this regard since a company can be founded on it, but completely transparently - which is arguably a bit better than have a 100LoC python script in a completely opaque MIT license that's trying to be used to sell to a company for $$, which is imo highly unethical (not novel or intellectually challenging in the slightest, and therefore not valuable). So yes, open source should be what we strive for, but research is the most important aspect of OSS.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I know this is a bit of a meme now in HN, and I agree that GPLv3 is certainly a much better license. The GPLv3 is certainly an open source license, sure. Better in blanket terms is...not the point I’m making, and I am not arguing that, in this space, all open source licenses are categorically better than non-open source licenses. But, I do think its important to describe licenses accurately and understand the implications of particular licenses. > However to push back a bit, I would say that at least the license allows researchers to do the important work that needs to be done. Yes, as far as sharing research, this is worlds better than OpenAI. And its worth noting that while the usage restrictions aren’t as competition-restricting, the most widely touted successful “open source” model (Stable Diffusion) is also not open source strictly (the license has usage restrictions) though there are some notable truly-open-source models.
- cozzyd 3y ago
  Yeah, not sure why they didn't choose AGPL or GPL instead of a license meant for documentation...
perryizgr8 3y ago
If I can read the source code it is open source.
- commoner 3y ago
  If you can read the source code, it is source-available. This model is source-available but not open source because CC-BY-NC 4.0 restricts the way the software can be used (noncommercial use only). This is contrary to the Open Source Definition's "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ For transparency and user freedom, CC-BY-NC 4.0 is still better than the proprietary license of OpenAI's closed source models.
  - perryizgr8 3y ago
    I don't agree. My definition of "open source" is that the source is open.
    - ssddanbrown 3y ago
      Just open to viewing? Would you consider stolen and GitHub-posted code as open source? Licenses adhering to the OSD generally ensure open viewing, open use, open modification and open distribution. Stripping that back to just viewing removes a large part of openness that "open source" has been built upon.
    - MaxikCZ 3y ago
      Luckily to prevent everybody interpreting sounds and glyphs as they wish, we -as a civilization- agreed to adhere to certain standards of how things would be interpreted. The same way we agreed that "allow" means can but not must, we agreed what open source means. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are in the right.

stochastimus 3y ago

Funny I came here just to say the exact same thing.

pelorat 3y ago

Expect to see more of that with the EU AI act looming over things.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]