this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
30 points (69.7% liked)

Technology

35123 readers
62 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

@[email protected] why on earth would you use a title like that? It‘s just plain wrong. The project switched to a different license. It is still free and still open source.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's free as in free food but adding an extra line to restrict how it can be used, or with who, makes it non-free software (free as in freedom).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

To a different license that, objectively, is not free and open source.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

So as far as I gather, it's still just as open source as before but you just can't sell it on the Confluence marketplace? Seems fair.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I think they moved from GPL3 to Apache 2 in 2017 and then only added that one line about restricting confluence in August.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Very confusing title!!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Crazy to see the thread of people using "open source" differently. The term "open source" may have successed in replacing the older term "free software" (in popularity) but apparently it can also fail to be clear. "Open" can mean various degrees of openess, or lack thereof in this case.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

The AI bubble is currently grinding my gears on this. "XXX is an open source model". No, it's not. Do I have access to all of the information necessary to recreate it? No, I don't as nobody releases training data.

Training data is the source of these models. Without it, they are just free use.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Good for them.

The adherence to open source in the form of free labor for corporations is not about freedom or availability whatsoever.