The open source[0] is the only reason anyone has time to make most of the valuable free software.
We can't all be like Donald Knuth or Simon Tatham making TeX and PuTTY as personal projects.
[0] specifically the freedom to fork, to develop further, and to make new releases that others can also build upon, which means I aver that many of the public AI models are sufficiently open that they're de facto open source even if the licensing isn't there.
Even if it's a de jure violation of the copyright to make a derivative, I'm not sure you could prove that had happened when all the weights are floating point numbers you can randomise slightly as a first step — if training just happens to move them back to the original values, well, that's just evidence the optimiser was working.
The F, free software. opensource® isn't needed but it became a bigger brand than free software and everything with source available is called open source nowadays
You have free software. Free software is pretty rigidly defined. You also have open source software, which people also seem to think is defined. I'm my opinion, the concept of open source software is vague enough that its definition is open to interpretation. Look at the people claiming that source available software is open source. Source available software is, in fact, open source software, even if it's not compatible with copyleft. Free software is not open to interpretation. Open source software can be free software, but some software can rightfully be called open source software even if it isn't free software. So, if we are using the terms interchangeably because they are the same thing, then open source is a redundant term. If open source software and free software are not the same, which might be the case sometimes, then I want free software. I'm not a programmer. I don't care to make money from software and, frankly, I don't care about the money making aspect of software. Open source stuff, to me, reeks of corporate capture. I don't want telemetry, or to be bled financially to use a product. I don't believe that software is or can ever be a product. Algorithms shouldn't be copyrighted even if they are wrapped in a programming language. I don't care about implementation. I think this is a case of A is B and B is sometimes A. It's the sometimes case that really bothers me. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
I mean that software, in it's written form, is the documentation of knowledge from software development, a service. I view sciencing as another service that produces knowledge. Knowledge has zero cost of duplication and, as such, cannot be considered a product. Artifacts that are produced by the application of knowledge are products because they have a non-zero cost of duplication. Computer hardware is an example of a product. I don't view intellectual property as property either. Software, in my opinion, isn't a product. Software is knowledge. I don't claim to be correct. I'm attempting to share my point of view. Anything with zero cost of duplication isn't a product in my mind because these things are infinitely copyable once created. Once a mathematician discovers a math they don't retain rights to it. Charging money for software is, in my view, no different than trying to make people pay for secret knowledge. You might be able to keep the secret locked down for a while, but it will get out eventually. Knowledge is the closest thing we have to magic, and if we choose to view it through the zero sum lens of capitalism, I think that does society a disservice in the long run. If I were a wizard I would share the magic, not try to charge money to teach people a spell or two. It might be the case that all products are knowledge given form, but keep in mind that knowledge exists before and after discovery and its fruits/artifacts must be created with work.
We can't all be like Donald Knuth or Simon Tatham making TeX and PuTTY as personal projects.
[0] specifically the freedom to fork, to develop further, and to make new releases that others can also build upon, which means I aver that many of the public AI models are sufficiently open that they're de facto open source even if the licensing isn't there.
Even if it's a de jure violation of the copyright to make a derivative, I'm not sure you could prove that had happened when all the weights are floating point numbers you can randomise slightly as a first step — if training just happens to move them back to the original values, well, that's just evidence the optimiser was working.