|
|
|
|
|
|
by chaxor
1117 days 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. |
|
|
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.