[starlust2]

I've noticed a big trend by commercial entities claiming to be "Open Source" but actually charging for licenses. Just because your code is in a public repo on github doesn't mean it's open source. If it's not an open source license it's not open.

This is especially true of AI projects.

[capableweb]

Since you mention it in connection to Together/RedPajama, are you saying that what they are publishing isn't actually open source? Most of the stuff I see them publish is licensed under Apache-2.0 which is a FOSS license, so I find it weird to mention it here.

[timtom39]

This is the org behind RedPajama. So, to date, they have been open.

[josephd79]

Didn't OpenAI promise the same thing when it first came out? I'm not fully invested in the space yet...so if that was completely different than RedPajama I apologize.

[latchkey]

Vipul's razor... https://razor.sourceforge.net/

He's well known for producing open source.

[slashdev]

Open source is overrated, in my opinion. I’d rather a healthy commercial entity driving development and supporting it, with visible source that I can modify as a big plus.

The whole OSI open source thing is nice, but it’s not going to matter to me much either way. I’m more worried that the open source project is no longer maintained or unsupported or development is slow and it gets obsolete. Your values, and thus your opinion, may be different.

[pydry]

Big tech seem to really dislike this model.

E.g. the whole tantrum Amazon had over the Elastic Search relicensing or Google briefly banning SSPL from their code hosting platform.