[observationist]

The faux-open models mean the models can't be used in competing products. The open code base means enthusiasts and amateurs and other people hack on Meta projects and contribute improvements.

They get free R&D and suppress competition, while looking like they have principles. Yann is clueless about open source principles, or the models would have been Apache or some other comparably open license. It's all ruthless corporate strategy, regardless of the mouth noises coming out of various meta employees.

[sangnoir]

> The faux-open models mean the models can't be used in competing products.

Just because certain entities can't profitably use a product or obtain a license doesn't make it not-open. AGPL is open, for an extreme example.

This argument is also subjective, and not new - "Which is more open BSD-style licenses or GPL?" has ben a guaranteed flameware starter for decades.

[observationist]

I'm not arguing about BSD or GPL. I'm saying that the "open source code, proprietary binary blob" pattern Meta is running with is about quashing potential competition, market positioning, and corporate priorities over any tangential beneficial contributions to open source AI.

It's shitty when other companies do it. It's shitty when Broadcom does it. It's shitty when Meta does it.

It's never a not shitty thing to do.

[importantbrian]

Meta's choice of license doesn't indicate that Yann is clueless about open-source principles. I don't know about Meta specifically, but in most companies choosing the license for open source projects involves working with a lot of different stakeholders. He very easily could have pushed for Apache or MIT and some other interest group within Meta vetoed it.