maffulli

Except that Llama's license has restrictions that make it incompatible with the Open Source Definition. https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not... I haven't checked the license of the new models, yet.

If you read the license, you'd realize that Llama has restrictions incompatible with the definition of Open Source.

https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not...

Thanks for the mention (I work at Grist)! We want to stay in business, indeed. How much shall we charge? :)

You may want to start looking at alternatives. I work at Grist https://getgrist.com, AMA.

that's why the OSI has been leading a global multistakeholder effort to define Open Source AI. Check https://opensource.org/ai

Check https://mot.isitopen.ai/

I don't accept that this is OSI's fault thought: It takes two to tango. The OSI has been thinking about a more appropriate format to address the issues of copyleft in the cloud world. I recognize that the problem exists, I wrote about it here: https://opensource.net/lost-decade-crucial-lessons-for-ai/

Frankly speaking, I would love to see also a detailed criticism of the AGPLv3. I would love to have a better understanding of why the SSPL was deemed necessary and what needs the AGPLv3 fails to satisfy... So far, the only explanations I've heard are superficial at best.

You have to also realize that most of these companies are not interested in copyleft or in the values of Open Source to empower users. They're following a very well known path, one that Phipps calls the rights ratchet model. Call it the SugarCRM model, if you prefer: it's a very very predictable pattern, from Open Source to proprietary in about 10 years https://meshedinsights.com/2021/02/02/rights-ratchet/

These are complex matters though and I'm convinced that they cannot be eviscerated properly on a social media, or only on an online forum. We need better ways.

> What I would rather see from OSI is defining Source Available licenses better.

Let's have a coffee and you can explain to me why you think this would be useful. I'll email you.

I don't think anybody would argue that the BUSL is an open source license. OSI has investigated and released a report last year about the business practices similar to what the BUSL uses: https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication

OSI executive director here: The SSPL was retracted from review (it was years ago) as the discussion on a mailing list stalled and became unproductive. Read the original threads on the list, not just that blog post. Frankly, it was a low point for the organization, the board at the time recognized it and that triggered a structural change[0], too.

We've been thinking about how we'd discuss large and controversial licenses in a productive way. We're learning how to drive large, productive, difficult conversations with the process towards the Open Source AI Definition[1] and we hope (soon) to be able to transfer that knowledge to other pressing issues, like complex licenses.

[0] https://opensource.org/blog/osi-executive-director [1] https://opensource.org/deepdive

OSI executive director here. I read this article and all the responses to the survey ran by Hashman before I was hired by the organization 2 years ago. There is very valuable feedback here and I took it seriously. In the 3 years since the original post was published, the OSI has changed in many ways although it remains a small non-profit with only 2 full time people on staff and a handful of part time consultants. I recommend to read our 2022 end of year report https://opensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2022-OSI-A... to get a quick glance of what we've done and check out our programs page https://opensource.org/programs for what we're doing now.