• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Open source isn’t defined legally, only through the OSI. The benefit is only from a marketing perspective as far as I’m aware.

    Which is also why it’s important that “open source” doesn’t get mixed up with “partially open source”, otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      It is defined legally in the EU

      https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

      https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/

      There are different requirements if the provider falls under “Free and open licence GPAI model providers”

      Which is legally defined in that piece of legislation

      otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.

      Meta has done a lot for Open source, to their credit. React Native is my preferred framework for mobile development, for example.

      Again- I fully acknowledge they are a large evil megacorp but without evil large megacorps we would not have Open Source as we know it today. There are certain realities we need to accept based on the system we live in. Open Source only exists because corporations benefit off of this shared infrastructure.

      Our laws should encourage this type of behavior and not restrict it. By limiting the scope, it gives Meta less incentive to open source the code behind their AI models. We want the opposite. We want to incentivize