Comment on Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly
kava@lemmy.world 21 hours agoI agree with you. What I’m saying is that perhaps the law can differentiate between “not open source” “partially open source” and “fully open source”
right now it’s just the binary yes/no. which again determines whether or not millions of people would have access to something that could be useful to them
i’m not saying change the definition of open source. i’m saying for legal purposes, in the EU, there should be some clarification in the law. if there is a financial benefit to having an open source product available then there should be something for having a partially open source product available
especially a product that is as open source as it could possible legally be without violating copyright
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 21 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 19 hours ago
It is defined legally in the EU
artificialintelligenceact.eu
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
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 also there are certain realities we need to accept based on the system we live in. Open Source only exists because corporations benefit off of these 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
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
I agree that we should incentivize open source work, but my worry is that by legitimizing partial open source as “open source”, you’re disincentivizing fully open source work. After all, why put in the effort if you’ll get the same result with way less work?
The incentive you’re asking for is a disincentive against full open source, and I can guarantee you that if the existing “open source” term wasn’t defended by hardliners, there’d be far less open source work in the wild than we have today.