Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly

[fossilesque@mander.xyz]

This post did not contain any content.

[will_a113@lemmy.ml]

Kinda funny how when mega corps can benefit from the millions upon millions of developer hours that they’re not paying for they’re all for open source. But when the mega corps have to ante up (with massive hardware purchases out of reach of any of said developers) they’re suddenly less excited about sharing their work.

[ulrich@feddit.org]

Money? Is it money?

clicks article

For Meta, it's all about the money.

Shocking.

[manucode@infosec.pub]

For Meta, it's all about the money.

And avoiding regulation

[sunzu2@thebrainbin.org]

You are describing parasitic behavior

[don@lemm.ee]

The time it took me to reach this conclusion, after seeing the headline, is measured in quectoseconds.

[baronvonj@lemmy.world]

That's alotl seconds!

[theoriginalthon@lemmy.world]

I think the licence type he is looking for is shareware

[don@lemm.ee]

Several thousand is a lot, sure.

[dilroopgill@lemmy.world]

No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?

[not_rick@lemmy.world]

Well yeah, because following regulations has an impact on the bottom line.

[kompressor@lemmy.world]

Desperately trying tap in to the general trust/safety feel that open source software typically has. Trying to muddy the waters because they’ve proven they cannot be trusted whatsoever

[fuzzy_feeling@programming.dev]

Meta's Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you'll have to pay Meta to use it. That's not open source. Period.

open source != no license restrictions

According to Meta, "Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today's rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community."

i think, he's got a point, tho

is ai open source, when the trainig data isn't?
as i understand, right now: yes, it's enough, that the code is open source. and i think that's a big problem

i'm not deep into ai, so correct me if i'm wrong.

[lillypip@lemmy.ca]

I taught myself programming in the 80s, then worked myself from waitress and line cook to programmer, UXD, and design lead to the point of being in the running for an Apple design award in the 2010s.

But I cared more than anything about making things FOR people. Making like easier. Making people happy. Making software that was a joy to use.

Then I got sick with something that’s neither curable nor easily manageable.

Now I’m destitute and have to choose between money and food, and I’m staring down homelessness.

Fuck these idiots who bought their way into nerd status (like Musk) or had one hot idea that took off and didn’t have to do anything after (this fucking guy). Hundreds or thousands of designers and programmers made these companies, and were tossed out like trash so a couple of people can be rock stars, making more per hour than most of us will see in a lifetime.

Slay the dragons.

[exec@pawb.social]

One is in direct relation with the other

[curious_canid@lemmy.ca]

Well, they have almost always circumvented them instead, but that impacts the bottom line too.

[horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world]

We're trying! You didn't know Karla when you were there did you? She had the best stories about Spain.

[not_rick@lemmy.world]

Yup, lawyers are expensive

[horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world]

A cancer does this also.

[lillypip@lemmy.ca]

I knew a Karla, but she was from Romania. Fantastic person. I miss her.