It's also quite ironic how on one hand ML companies feel entitled to use any material they want for training a model, but on the other hand also feel entitled to place restrictions on how that model or its output can be used, in some cases even proclaiming that you cannot use the output of their model to train your own model. Copyright for me but not for thee.
> What you cannot do. You may not use our Services for any illegal, harmful, or abusive activity. For example, you may not:
> Use Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI.
Training ChatGPT on the entire corpus of human creation is "fair use", but training a model on ChatGPTs output is "illegal, harmful, or abusive activity".
Especially amusing because, although you can argue about whether training a model is an infringment, most of the training data actually have copyrights.
ML models, on the other hand, are not works of authorship and have no copyright protection at all, period. Or at least that's the natural interpretation of copyright law as it's been applied everywhere up to this point. I suspect that the large commercial interests involved will manage to buy either favorable (but bogus) court decisions or favorable (but stupid) legislation.
OSI's definition of open source is one definition of it, and not necessarily one everyone agrees with. Folks claiming their work is open source are not beholden to this one organization's opinion about what can and cannot be considered open source. That's not to say I agree with the choice of using it in this instance, but I respect the fact that the term isn't precise enough to say it's wrong.
The OSI definition is fairly precise and the most commonly used definition. Anything else will add confusion. We should promote the OSI definition and discourage imprecise usage.
In the age of Software Bill of Materials and increasing focus on upstream attacks, the OSI definitions via the SPDX list, is getting increasingly rigid and used as terms of art. While I like you am a linguistic descriptivist, I can also recognize attempts to confuse and white-wash.
At the end of the day until there is a legal or at least common-law definition of a term, the term can have a pretty wide definition when a large number of contracts are reviewed. Typically as cases around the definition go through court they become presidence. We've not reached that place in the 'open source' world.
The OSD is literally as old as the phrase itself, and was popularized along with the phrase. I actually don't like some parts of the OSD that much, but it's as close to a universally accepted definition as you'll ever get for anything.
... and even if you don't accept the OSD, what these people are distributing isn't source code in any sense at all. Nor do their restrictions usually resemble what the average person would think of as "open".
Yeah, let's agree the term open source can mean anything, for example closed source.
There is no small nuance to intellectualize about here if 98% of the discussed thing is the contrary of what you claim it is. (Now, one could argue it is 90%, won't help)
