Alas the license is CC-BY-NC 4.0.
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.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
For transparency and user freedom, CC-BY-NC 4.0 is still better than the proprietary license of OpenAI's closed source models.
Licenses adhering to the OSD generally ensure open viewing, open use, open modification and open distribution. Stripping that back to just viewing removes a large part of openness that "open source" has been built upon.
Exactly. I'm for using definitions of words as they are commonly understood. The other definition relies on arbitrary conditions totally unrelated to the English meanings of the words being used.
No you are not. Open source in the context of computing has a definition that is commonly understood. Why then are you using definition of that word that is not commonly understood?