I don't get it. What would they redefine it to?
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
379 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
61632 readers
4507 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ask "OpenAI"
What are we going to do with the colonisers?
He is definitely in the same list as Trump and Elon Musk.
Because he's an insecure and greedy child.
He's also a sociopath who will say and do anything to get his way.
I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.
How about a no.
Yes
Money? Is it money?
clicks article
For Meta, it's all about the money.
Shocking.
I taught myself programming in the 80s, then worked myself from waitress and line cook to programmer, UXD, and design lead to the point of being in the running for an Apple design award in the 2010s.
But I cared more than anything about making things FOR people. Making like easier. Making people happy. Making software that was a joy to use.
Then I got sick with something that’s neither curable nor easily manageable.
Now I’m destitute and have to choose between medicine and food, and I’m staring down homelessness. (eta I was homeless from age 16-18, and I won’t do that again now, with autoimmune dysautonomia and in my mid-50s, even if the alternative is final.)
Fuck these idiots who bought their way into nerd status (like Musk) or had one hot idea that took off and didn’t have to do anything after (this fucking guy). Hundreds or thousands of designers and programmers made these companies, and were tossed out like trash so a couple of people can be rock stars, making more per hour than most of us will see in a lifetime.
Slay the dragons.
I mean, didn't he famously steal the idea?
His "idea" was about how to monetize a concept already in existence on MySpace, facilitated by completely ignoring any ethical constraints. That, and a snobbery-based product launch through the Ivies.
You’re right. I forgot about the lawsuit and settlement (for $65m). They’re both frauds.
load more comments
(2 replies)
For Meta, it's all about the money.
And avoiding regulation
Well yeah, because following regulations has an impact on the bottom line.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Meta's Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, 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.
open source != no license restrictions
According to Meta, "Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today's rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community."
i think, he's got a point, tho
is ai open source, when the trainig data isn't?
as i understand, right now: yes, it's enough, that the code is open source. and i think that's a big problem
i'm not deep into ai, so correct me if i'm wrong.
Software licenses that "discriminate against any person or group of persons" or "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor" are not open source. Llama's license doesn't just restrict Llama from being used by companies with "700 million monthly active users", it also restricts Llama from being used to "create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model" or being used for military purposes (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources
So as I understand it, under the OSI definition of the word, anything distributed under a copyleft licence would not be open source.
So all software with GNU GPL, for example.
That's incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.
The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling or distributing GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. For example, all Linux distributions contain GPL-licensed software, as the Linux kernel is GPLv2.
Open source software doesn't, by definition, place restrictions on usage.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.
Clauses like "you can use this software freely except in specific circumstances" fly against that. Open source licenses usually have very little to say about what the software should be used for, and usually just as an affirmation that you can use the software for whatever you want.
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›