On 2024-10-29 17:45:20 +0200 (+0200), Jonathan Carter wrote: [...] > What is the OSI's motivation for creating such an incredibly lax definition > for open source AI? Meta is already calling their absolutely-not-open-source > model Open Source and promoting it as such, without as much as a *peep* from > the OSI condemning the abuse of the term. (although, while doing a quick > search to make sure that's true, I found this link from OSI to an article > that keeps insisting that LLama3 is open source: > https://opensource.org/press-mentions/meta-inches-toward-open-source-ai-with-new-llama-3-1) [...]
The earliest comment I'm aware of from them on that specific point is this article (2023-07-20): https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source > > Meta is confusing “open source” with “resources available to > > some users under some conditions,” two very different things. > > We’ve asked them to correct their misstatement. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
