this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025

442 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

61632 readers

4290 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

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

442

Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly (www.zdnet.com)

submitted 23 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] fuzzy_feeling@programming.dev 53 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

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.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 13 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.

Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I understand the same way and I think there's a lot of gray area which makes it hard to just say "the data also needs to be open source for the code to be open source". What would that mean for postgreSQL? Does it magically turn closed source if I don't share what's in my db? What would it mean to every open source software that stores and uses that stored data?

I'm not saying the AI models shouldn't be open source, I'm saying reigning in the models needs to be done very carefully because it's very easy to overreach and open up a whole other can of worms.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world 35 points 23 hours ago

I think the licence type he is looking for is shareware

[–] Kompressor@lemmy.world 25 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Desperately trying tap in to the general trust/safety feel that open source software typically has. Trying to muddy the waters because they’ve proven they cannot be trusted whatsoever

[–] kava@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (3 children)

when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it's a valid question.

one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts

of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address that don't fit into our current IP legal framework

my preferred solution is just to eliminate IP entirely

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source?

When part of my code base belongs to someone else, how do I make it open source? By open sourcing the parts that belong to me, while clarifying that it's only partially open source.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

I mean, you can have open source weights, training data, and code/model architecture. If you've done all three it's an open model, otherwise you state open "component". Seems pretty straightforward to me.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] conc@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

I have some Aladeen news for you my friend

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] dilroopgill@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (7 children)

No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.

It's either open for everyone, or it isn't open.

Edit: sorry to whoever doesn't like it, but it's literally how "open source" is defined

[–] balder1991@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it's not open-source. You don't get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments