[kouteiheika]

Slightly offtopic, but:

> One of the models listed above called NLLB (No Language Left Behind) has been open sourced by Facebook allowing for translation for 200 languages.

It was not. The model's weights are under CC-BY-NC, which certainly motivates commercial entities to not leave those languages behind. /s

[adsfoiu1]

It was open sourced, just under a non-commercial license.

[jchmrt]

One of the criteria of the most often used definition of open source [0] is that the program is free to use and modify for all purposes. So a noncommercial license would not qualify as open source. This is also a requirement of the free software definition of the FSF, which is also often used to define free/open source.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

[rnd0]

GNU zealouts (and I consider myself one) need to take a deep breath and re-think what is being said.

It *IS* accurate to say that the program and source must be free to use for all purposes the recipient wants including commercial.

This was an involved conversation that was had during the 90's and yes, "no commercial reuse allowed" licenses are not -in fact- free licenses. I might be wrong but I have the impression they are not allowed on debian cds/dvds for that reason.

> If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? (#GPLCommercially)

> You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

> These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCommercially

[jbverschoor]

"all purposes" cannot include any GPL licensed software because it clashes with certain licenses. So by that definition Linux is not Open Source.

The BSD and MIT licenses

[chomp]

Wrong. Open Source does not have to bend the knee to whatever proprietary license you can dream up and shove into your code base.

>Source code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Does this apply to Linux? Check.

>Derived works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Does this apply to Linux? Check.

Please visit https://opensource.org/licenses/ to see all of the licenses that are generally agreed upon to be Open Source licenses.

[detaro]

"combine specific software X with specific other software Y" is not a field of endeavor, so this argument is bullshit.

[teddyh]

Non-commercial licenses are not Open Source: https://opensource.org/osd/

[kube-system]

"open source" has a broader English meaning that predates the OSI for at least several decades. OSI does not have a trademark on "open source" because of this.

This is the software licensing world's version of "a hotdog is not a sandwich"

[rnd0]

"open source" has a specific, standard useage and meaning in the software world and has had since at least 1998 and to be honest probably before.

For the last 25 years, in the software field, the common usage has been the one from the OSI.

Of course contrarians will disagree. Contrarians will always be contrary and may be safely ignored.

[kube-system]

And most people do not call a hot dog a sandwich. Yet, enough do that it is valid English.

[teddyh]

A lot of people confuse, say, Switzerland and Sweden, but this does not make it valid to call either by the other name. Likewise, “Open Source” has a precise definition, and people being confused does not make it less so. Of course, a lot of people are not actually confused, but are engaging disingenuously in order to dilute the term, so that they can use it for their own ends.

[teddyh]

The definition of “open source” is universally agreed upon to have the OSI-defined meaning, except for some people:

1. Intelligence community people, who have long understood the term “open source” to mean a source of intelligence which is not itself secret.

2. People who, without having ever looked it up, assume it means that the source code is available for reading. These people are simply ignorant, and should be using the term “source available” instead, since it means exactly that.

3. People who want to be able to use the “open source” term for their software to gain goodwill, but don’t want to actually give all of the freedoms it should guarantee. These people are dishonest shills who try to confuse the debate in order to get away with fraudulent labeling.

(Repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332056)

[kube-system]

> People who want to be able to use the “open source” term for their software to gain goodwill, but don’t want to actually give all of the freedoms it should guarantee.

Or is "open source" just a term for "free" as in beer software that doesn't actually give people all the freedoms it should guarantee? Because that's what the FSF thinks.

Different people have different ideas about what freedoms people "should" have. Nobody is being dishonest about software freedoms when the BSD-4-clause was written, CC0 or when they write licenses with 'no evil' or 'no nuclear proliferation' clauses.

[teddyh]

> Or is "open source" just a term for "free" as in beer software that doesn't actually give people all the freedoms it should guarantee? Because that's what the FSF thinks.

No it isn’t. The OSI invented the term "Open Source” as applied to software, and they get to define its meaning as what they intended.

> Because that's what the FSF thinks.

No they don’t. The FSF completely accepts the OSI definition of the term “Open Source”: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

[HDThoreaun]

I disagree. You don’t get to decide what words mean. Open source means open source, that’s it. If you want it to mean something else you should’ve chosen a phrase that didn’t already have a meaning.

[teddyh]

Sometimes old words and terms acquire new meanings. The only meaning “Open Source” had before the OSI was the intelligence “open sources” meaning. Is this the only meaning of “Open Source” you accept? If not, what is your definition, and why should that prevail over the OSI definition?

[morelisp]

> "open source" has a broader English meaning that predates the OSI for at least several decades.

It is also not data collected by an intelligence agency or law enforcement from public sources.

[kube-system]

It isn't. But those who coined it were aware of it being used for that purpose. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

[voxic11]

> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

Its a model not a program. So that definition can't possibly apply to it no matter the license.

[tmaly]

If there was a kick starter campaign to raise funding for a model that could be used for commercial purposes, I would definitely chip in.

[arthurcolle]

Everyone I know ripped those LLaMA leak models and are using them extensively in "open source code" / commercial products - super unwise, but not sure licensing is actually slowing down progress in this field and even though I'm sure OpenAI is using alternative methods to make the language stuff work so well, I just wanted to comment on that front.

I wouldn't release a chatbot based on LLaMA 65B, because of the legal issues, I'm not sure others are using the same restraint.

[flangola7]

The law has always struggled to keep up with technology and the velocity today is higher than ever before.

By the time a copyright dispute makes it to trial these companies will be able to hide behind actual killer robots.

[simsla]

That's still open sourced.

[jenadine]

No it isn't