There’s more people who have a vague understanding that “open-source” is good than people who understand software licenses, and nevermind people who actually go to compile the supposedly-open-source software to see what’s included.
And if multiple people tell you that LLaMA is open-source, at some point you’re just gonna assume that’s true rather than check the license/code yourself.
Hell, there’s even absolute dickholes which post their own definition of “open-source” like they’re the fucking OSI themselves: https://futo.org/open-source-definition/
But because a popular YouTuber is behind that scam, you now have fanboys putting into question whether the definition from the OSI, which literally coined the term by publishing the definition, is actually the correct one. Absolutely incredible.
Edit: While researching for the comment below, I found this page on the FUTO website, which says their open-source definition was just a very funny parody: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/
Why they don’t take that open-source definition offline then, or preface it with a disclaimer, I do not know. And I think their reasoning for the parody is shit, but make up your own mind.
Hell, there’s even absolute dickholes which post their own definition of “open-source” like they’re the fucking OSI themselves: https://futo.org/open-source-definition/
They seem to be a bit incoherent… some AGPL, some MIT, then some inh-house licensing… weird.
Louis Rossmann. He’s only one employee of FUTO, so I’m not saying he’s personally responsible for or even particularly agrees with that page (although I wouldn’t know, if he is), but his public support for FUTO pushes those fanboys in that direction either way.
It annoys me so much, because it works.
There’s more people who have a vague understanding that “open-source” is good than people who understand software licenses, and nevermind people who actually go to compile the supposedly-open-source software to see what’s included.
And if multiple people tell you that LLaMA is open-source, at some point you’re just gonna assume that’s true rather than check the license/code yourself.
Hell, there’s even absolute dickholes which post their own definition of “open-source” like they’re the fucking OSI themselves: https://futo.org/open-source-definition/
But because a popular YouTuber is behind that scam, you now have fanboys putting into question whether the definition from the OSI, which literally coined the term by publishing the definition, is actually the correct one. Absolutely incredible.
Edit: While researching for the comment below, I found this page on the FUTO website, which says their open-source definition was just a very funny parody: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/
Why they don’t take that open-source definition offline then, or preface it with a disclaimer, I do not know. And I think their reasoning for the parody is shit, but make up your own mind.
They seem to be a bit incoherent… some AGPL, some MIT, then some inh-house licensing… weird.
Which YouTuber is that?
Louis Rossmann. He’s only one employee of FUTO, so I’m not saying he’s personally responsible for or even particularly agrees with that page (although I wouldn’t know, if he is), but his public support for FUTO pushes those fanboys in that direction either way.