Post ArIQ5tUVp01PRO6mVE by nparafe@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by nparafe@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #Ar1b4z6NGuICMRGgrI by kirschner@mastodon.social
2025-02-05T09:14:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Our sister organisation the @fsf has published its evaluation of the #Llama 3.1 CommunityLicense Agreement. This is not a #FreeSoftware (#OpenSource) license. Read more why it does not qualify https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/llama-3-1-community-license-is-not-a-free-software-license
(DIR) Post #Ar1b50ISpRYc4DvrLE by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-05T12:16:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kirschner I don't think that we must confuse #FreeSoftware with #OpenSource [1] We all agree with @fsf about Llama not being free, but we must wait for a statement from @osi to claim that it is not OpenSource...
(DIR) Post #Ar1b51OWkO09TJmDQm by kirschner@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T12:57:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nparafe @fsf @osi https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/comparison.en.html about the terms. About OSI: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source
(DIR) Post #Ar1b51xycaMFFGMWga by amszmidt@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T15:58:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kirschner @nparafe We have to remember that even if OSI classifies something as "Open Source"; it does not mean that it is "Free Software". There are licenses that's the OSI has classified as "OSI", but are clearly non-free software licenses. The @fsfe makes the matter worse, by stating that "Free Software (sometimes called Open Source)"; that is false. @fsf @osi
(DIR) Post #Ar1b52X4W6Ql06mYO8 by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-02-11T23:53:02Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
free software is a revolutionary ideaopen source has always been counter-revolutionaryfree software is about emancipationopen source has always been tolerant to barriers to emancipationfree software is about overthrowing tyrants and achieving freedomopen source is about accommodating slightly enlightened despots, that are happy to achieve more efficient exploitation of others the open source wayhttps://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/pub/against-software-tyrannywe are not the samebut we can often work together, and participate in coalitions where it makes sense, despite our important differences. the overlap is also significant, after all.however, dismissing the differences and conflating the different causes and goals doesn't serve ours. it's a strategic mistake IMFO.CC: @kirschner@mastodon.social @nparafe@mastodon.social @fsfe@mastodon.social @fsf@hostux.social @osi@opensource.org
(DIR) Post #Ar1b54JJuCcQW2MbEO by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-05T12:17:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
(DIR) Post #Ar2NxpDkVSDJRTvw4u by kirschner@mastodon.social
2025-02-12T07:19:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo @amszmidt @nparafe @fsfe @fsf @osi I understand your point. But over the last two decades I have meet so many people who strongly believe in what you described for Free Software, while they called it Open Source. That was different in "the old days". So while I, and the @fsfe call what we are fighting for Free Software, or we talk about software freedom, others out there had the same believes, fought for the same topics, but called it Open Source.
(DIR) Post #Ar2NxqhuylwM3L3Xk0 by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-02-12T09:00:54Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
what you (and the article you mention) now talk about is the software, and when it's clear that that's what one talks about, there is indeed some similarity, though even there there are very important distinctions to make, because of fundamental differences in the underlying values and goals that attract people and organizations to prefer one label over the other.people who think the values and goals are the same are just confused, and it doesn't serve our goals and values to promote that confusion. promoting the conflation of a strict cause with a laxer cause may make you popular with the latter, but it will weaken the strict cause and promote the laxer one instead.the laxer one tolerates proprietary blobs in Linux, pretending them to be open source; it tolerates tivotized (therefore nonfree) software while recognizing it as open source software; it tolerates scenarios in which programs available under freedom-respecting licenses do one's computing but run under another's control, which renders it nonfree to the only party to whom this matters.referring anyone to the open source label encourages them to assume all of these very relevant scenarios don't matter. reinforcing the false equivalence makes them believe that not even free software cares about them.framing it as a less ambitious first step, rather than misrepresenting it as an equivalence, might serve a useful purpose for us, instead of undermining our cause. please don't settle for less than what we stand for.CC: @amszmidt@mastodon.social @nparafe@mastodon.social @fsfe@mastodon.social @fsf@hostux.social @osi@opensource.org
(DIR) Post #Ar2Nxswse7650K4WLA by kirschner@mastodon.social
2025-02-12T07:21:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo @amszmidt @nparafe @fsfe @fsf @osi For me they are part of our movement for software freedom, when they share our values and by their actions, while they might still use other terms than I do.
(DIR) Post #Ar2NxwZHBoaoEH3j6W by kirschner@mastodon.social
2025-02-12T07:22:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo @amszmidt @nparafe @fsfe @fsf @osi I wrote this here some years ago: https://k7r.eu/2-percent-discussion-free-software-or-open-source-software/
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5ovGo5SFGvaa12 by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T17:11:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kirschner Two observations:1)@osi should respond to Llama v3.1 as it is aggressively advertised as opensource by META. The, single author, blog post is for v2 and isn't even a statement...2)The (1st) article was written 13 years ago - we must respond to what history taught us. opensource is now influenced by big tech in unprecedented ways. Advances in ML (and #OSAID) are widening the gap between #freesoftware and #opensource. I feel that using both terms is highly misleading fsf@hostux.social
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5pzCqwCIZQREn2 by webmink@meshed.cloud
2025-02-11T17:14:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nparafe @kirschner @osi did post https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source and this revision seems to change nothing.
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5qXwllzEJAgywK by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T17:47:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink Llama license has severely changed [a][b] and so is META's opensource campaign[c] and, as I have already mentioned, a blog post doesn't seem as a strong statement.
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5r8oYhTe9VwQPA by webmink@meshed.cloud
2025-02-11T18:11:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nparafe OK, I'll investigate. But you can be confident that it's not an open source license.
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5re0giQliGXL1s by webmink@meshed.cloud
2025-02-18T17:14:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nparafe OSI posted this: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not-open-sourceand I just posted this: https://meshed.cloud/@webmink/114025966275341199
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5s9um5x3JDSol6 by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-19T04:19:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink It is a good thing that @osi made a statement, although I fear it is too late now. #opensource is now a term that has lost all it's credibility[1].As for the part that (us) individuals "are supporting Meta’s open washing efforts", until @osi stops accepting money from META (and other big tech)[2] then this claim is simply ridiculous.
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5ssE7LOfWeCCpM by webmink@meshed.cloud
2025-02-19T10:16:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nparafe @osi Meta does not give OSI money, as far as I know. I would be interested to know the source of that allegation.
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5tUVp01PRO6mVE by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-19T12:30:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink !!! You should see my previous post (and the sources I posted) carefullyAnyway...https://web.archive.org/web/20250201225745/https://opensource.org/sponsors
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5u8ZQ443RcqlwO by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-02-20T02:39:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
it is weird that mr phipps first denied the existence of the funding, then put it in the past, but it's not automatic that when an organization gets money from a source, it will bend over to it, it's just something that needs to be more carefully managed than most organizations seem to even care about managing. IMHO, accepting donations from a corporation that is hostile to your cause is a way to take money away from whatever it is that the corporation pursues, and use it in favor of your cause. it can't be a bad thing. the risk is not in accepting a donation, but in becoming dependent on it, so that when the corporation finally decides to demand a return on the investment, asking for favors and threatening to cut the funding off, the funding turns into corruption of the organization. getting recurring funding from many dispersed sources who actually support your cause is harder but safer than getting corporate "investments", but I believe that given enough dispersed support, it is possible to mitigate the risk that donations turn into corrupting forces. odds are the corrupting investments sooner or later will dry up anyway if they don't offer the expected return, so you have to count on that, and be aware and prepared for that.CC: @webmink@meshed.cloud
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5uZ9pDKcm5I0Nk by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T17:48:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/meta-llama/llama/main/LICENSE
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5uhJKtqzBN6W5g by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T17:49:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/meta-llama/llama3/main/LICENSE
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5ulZ55FxOZ5uim by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T17:49:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://web.archive.org/web/20250210152824/https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/open-source-ai-is-the-path-forward/
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5yeybWMZTI2i0W by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-19T04:20:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://www.zdnet.com/article/if-musk-wants-ai-for-the-world-why-not-open-source-all-the-grok-models/
(DIR) Post #ArIQ5yjELhlXgU26dc by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-19T04:22:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://web.archive.org/web/20250201225745/https://opensource.org/sponsors
(DIR) Post #ArK1pkXTKSMkSVBJjs by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-20T19:14:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo Imagine an antiwar campaign being funded by an arms dealer. Nobody will trust them an rightly so.This applies in technology. Even if you are financially secure and, thus, independent, accepting donations from a "hostile" organization, disheartens and confuses the people.We are living in a word that things are more straightforward than 15 years ago.You either fight them or you join them.@webmink I
(DIR) Post #ArK1plaLRGG3hhX7r6 by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-02-20T21:17:19Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Imagine an antiwar campaign being funded by an arms dealerSure. Imagine taxing arms dealers and manufacturers to run antiwar campaigns. Imagine taxing tobacco and other narcotics makers and dealers to invest in prevention, mitigation, researching and curing.contrast with "no, I'm not going to accept the guns they wish to give up, because they're dirty from the crimes they committed with them, even if by accepting them I could have them destroyed and turned into useful things"this "oh, they take dirty money, so they are dirty" is the same sort of superficial reasoning built on undeserved generalizations that I abhor from cancel culture. taking money that would be put to bad uses and putting it to good uses is good, not bad, no matter what prejudices others who haven't thought enough about it might have, provided that certain mitigations are present which people who proceed to engage in cancellations typically don't look into.question for you to ponder about: would you ever accept an anonymous donation without any strings attached? bear in mind it could be from someone "dirty". or from some fervent but very shy supporter of the cause. there's just no way to tell whom it comes from. how would you decide whether or not to take it?CC: @webmink@meshed.cloud
(DIR) Post #ArLF6NFKg0GzheukAy by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-21T07:02:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo You need to read my previous post more carefully. I didn't touched the matter of corruption (although I am not convinced that it is feasible not to be corrupted by dirty money). If our own organizations cannot provide an alternative without big tech, how can we fight for a world without them?P.S.: Please avoid using phrases that misanthropist lunatics use[i]@webmink
(DIR) Post #ArLF6O8HNiE2S4ccoy by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-02-21T11:20:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
undue influence is corruption. if you're speaking of something even less material, such as some twisted perception that by taking resources from the enemy you're somehow favoring the enemy or associating with the enemy, then I can only conclude you've fallen in a cognitive trap, because it makes no sense whatsoever to me.the world we're trying to build won't be influenced by where the resources to build it come from. the problem would be money or resources flowing in the opposite direction.I've no clue what you're getting at WRT phrases; odds are I'm tripping on dog whistles I'm not even aware of. I'm told that happens often. that makes whatever perceptions or triggers you derive from that no more than projections. better ask clarifying questions rather than assume I mean whatever you project on me.CC: @webmink@meshed.cloud
(DIR) Post #ArLF6RU0vMOSqLoWcC by nparafe@mastodon.social
2025-02-21T07:04:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1863123066869649494