pull down to refresh
135 sats \ 6 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 26 Oct \ on: Openwashing tech
Yes, wasn’t OpenAI open source until they went private? It is a huge threat to the open sourced community. Openwashing is also a good way to become a profiteer.
Who will share their time, efforts and creativity if someone else then takes it for a profit later. I wouldn’t contribute under those conditions at all, ever.
This is why you only contribute to copy left licensed projects.
Permissive licenses like MIT and BSD enable a company to fork the work of a community into a setting where well funded teams can quickly leave volunteers in the dust.
reply
All open-source licenses must allow distribution in some way - meaning anyone who receives open-source software can inspect and/or alter the code. Copyleft licenses differ in that they require the same rights (the rights to inspect or modify the code) to all works that use the attached piece of code.
Had to look that one up. Yes, copyleft seems quite meaningful...
reply
Yes, they allow for distribution but do not require the improvements be distributed. That is what makes OS so vulnerable.
reply
Yes, I understand that they Hoover up all of the work of the open-source community and then never give anything back to the community, keep the improvements hidden and take the profits. I have been using Linux for quite a while now and see what happens to things like Fedora and etc.
reply
Yeah, not a big fan of having someone like Altman in charge of that company... He's steered it far from the initial lofty goals of openness in service of society.
reply
He may have had just these actions in mind as part of his plan from the beginning. Be-ill Gates, is a fine standard to work to as he did the very same thing with MicroSloth. Somehow partners and other co-workers get lost on the path to filthy riches.
reply