this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025

485 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

61774 readers

6321 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

485

Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly (www.zdnet.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Meta's Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you'll have to pay Meta to use it. That's not open source. Period.

open source != no license restrictions

According to Meta, "Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today's rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community."

i think, he's got a point, tho

is ai open source, when the trainig data isn't?
as i understand, right now: yes, it's enough, that the code is open source. and i think that's a big problem

i'm not deep into ai, so correct me if i'm wrong.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.

Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I understand the same way and I think there's a lot of gray area which makes it hard to just say "the data also needs to be open source for the code to be open source". What would that mean for postgreSQL? Does it magically turn closed source if I don't share what's in my db? What would it mean to every open source software that stores and uses that stored data?

I'm not saying the AI models shouldn't be open source, I'm saying reigning in the models needs to be done very carefully because it's very easy to overreach and open up a whole other can of worms.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 day ago

I think the licence type he is looking for is shareware

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Desperately trying tap in to the general trust/safety feel that open source software typically has. Trying to muddy the waters because they’ve proven they cannot be trusted whatsoever

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it's a valid question.

one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts

of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address that don't fit into our current IP legal framework

my preferred solution is just to eliminate IP entirely

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I mean, you can have open source weights, training data, and code/model architecture. If you've done all three it's an open model, otherwise you state open "component". Seems pretty straightforward to me.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source?

When part of my code base belongs to someone else, how do I make it open source? By open sourcing the parts that belong to me, while clarifying that it's only partially open source.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

This is essentially what Llama does, no? The reason they are attempting a clarification is because they would be subject to different regulations depending on whether or not it's open source.

If they open source everything they legally can, then do they qualify as "open source" for legal purposes? The difference can be tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU according to Meta.

So a clarification on this issue, I think, is not asking for so much. Hate Facebook as much as the next guy but this is like 5 minute hate material

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If people could stop redefining words, that would go a long way to fixing our current strife.

Not a total solution, but it would clarify the discussion. I loathe people who redefine and weaponize words.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

I have some Aladeen news for you my friend

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

expend, reload, repeat

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.

It's either open for everyone, or it isn't open.

Edit: sorry to whoever doesn't like it, but it's literally how "open source" is defined

[–] [email protected] 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

No, software being free as in beer is not a necessary condition for being open-source. And if the code is not free as in beer, the pricing model can be whatever the hell you want, as long as the code is shared when the user is licensed. That can mean an expensive license for enterprise use coexisting with a free license for (say) researchers and individual devs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (5 children)

No, not in the way GP wrote. You're not allowed to have your license discriminate between users, so you'd have to sell your software to everyone, not just big companies.

Either no one pays, or everyone pays.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

And that’s literally what the article says lol I don’t know why you were downvoted.

Emily Omier, a well-regarded open-source start-up consultant, emphasized that open source is a binary standard set by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), not a spectrum. "Either you're open source, or you are not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it's not open-source. You don't get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I suppose that both cases apply here. He’s saying that you either comply with an open source license that’s defined by the OSI or you don’t. That includes the source code to be available yes, but the article also mentions Meta license has a restriction:

if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you'll have to pay Meta to use it. That's not open source. Period.

From my understanding, you can’t take an open source license, add random restrictions and still call it open source (“if it’s a corporation it needs to pay a % fee to me”). It doesn’t matter if 98% of the license is open source, at that point your software simply isn’t open source anymore.

You can definitely have multiple licenses, such as Qt does to allow statically linking it and to modify it without distributing the source code, but that simply isn’t an open source one.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments