Open Source Is Geopolitical Now | Hacker News Reader

Open Source Is Geopolitical Now

openpioneers.com

For being an article about "open source" and the implications on geo-politics, it seems like a not sufficiently researched article. Something obvious that sticks out:

> Meta & Llama: In 2023, Meta was behind OpenAI and Google in AI. By releasing Llama openly, Meta gained community support and adoption, striking at rivals’ closed approaches.

Meta might call Llama "open source" in their marketing material, but all their legal documents call Llama "proprietary" and anyone taking a closer look at their license/use policy would immediately be able to point out how Llama isn't open source.

Since the article gets something really basic wrong, how could we trust the rest of the article?

The article talks about the fact that those model are "available to anyone", even Llama is Open Source from that point of view: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models Where Llama is not Open Source is in total respect of certain ethical principles: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not...

So, it’snot 100% Open Source inside the context of the article it’s acceptable. Moreover, even DeepSeek is not OpenSource, it’s "OpenWeight"

Words have meaning and sometimes it's important to remain clear. I think it is not acceptable to use "open source" for things that are not actually "open source", especially in an article about the topic. There are probably better words to describe what needs to be described instead.

See my other comment [1] where I try to defend why I think like this.

(Now, as I'm saying in the other comment, in this case for this article, it's just an example that doesn't work, it's not something fundamentally wrong about it.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43613453#43614394

This is the type of thing that only people who get in internet arguments about MIT vs BSD care about. Is the llama license open source as defined by the OSD? No. But for the majority of people, they don't care. For all intents and purposes, it is open source for them. All of this is to say that I don't fault the author for just calling it open source.

Except that Llama 4's license restricts you from using its multimodal features in the European union, and the Llama 3 license restricted using the model output to augment the training of other models (distillation). Both are important use cases. It very much isn't an academic exercise. It has a real impact on what you can (legally) do with a model.

With a model licensed using MIT, you know what you are getting. You know you can modify it. You know you can use it for any purpose whatsoever, including ones the corporation that built it dislikes. Using the MIT license is "no ace up my sleeve" licensing - there are no gotchas that will come and bite you later.

> Except that Llama 4's license restricts you from using its multimodal features in the European union

The EU restrictions were added in 3.2's Use Policy, while 3.1 License introduced the restrictions on using model output for training other models. I've collated the changes here: https://notes.victor.earth/how-llamas-licenses-have-evolved-...

Besides that, I agree with what you're saying.

I appreciate the correction. I've not been paying much attention to Llama licensing after the first Llama 3 models came out.

Model output isn't copyrightable, and I would be surprised if them models themselves were copyrightable too, which means the licenses are meaningless.

> Is the llama license open source as defined by the OSD? No

No indeed, full stop. I think that If one needs to express some idea, one should use clear and exact terms for this. I don't think "open source", which is widely recognized with a specific meaning, should be twisted. The shared definition of "open source" is the one defined by the OSD.

> But for the majority of people, they don't care

Maybe they should, but even if they don't, it's not an excuse. Especially in an article about the very topic at hand.

The open source definition seems constantly attacked for some reason, and that blurs the meaning of everything in the ecosystem. We need to fight back against this. If you care about open source, how are you supposed to spread the word if "open source" has lost its meaning?

It also matters because if one thinks that open source is the better thing to do, but everything and their dog is called open source, then everything is good and we don't need to bother with the principles anymore (not unlike the Overton window).

Now, in this case for this article, it's just an example that doesn't work, it's not something fundamentally wrong about it. I'm just pushing back on the idea that it doesn't matter if we misuse "open source" a bit which seems to spread fast these days.

I think you mean MIT vs GPL? MIT & BSD are almost equivalent.

> Apple iOS led smartphones until Google made Android free and open source, enabling manufacturers and developers worldwide

This is the Android which Google is now developing in private (https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-development-... ), and which uses specialized security hardware so app developers can override your decision to run the app on a de-Googled Android phone, right?

> Gumroad: An e-commerce platform that allows creators to sell digital and physical products directly to their audience. Now open source!

Ahh, yes, the company whose CEO is DOGE operative at the VA. https://www.wired.com/story/doge-department-of-veterans-affa...

Geopolitical indeed.

Most of the internet runs on Linux and the money involved is enormous. So yes, of course it will get pulled into politics.

In the past, with this trade war Trump started, the US could just ban software/hardware from going to say China. Now no more. Also since Linux is free and the source is under the GPL, no way to stop it from being used everywhere.

I wonder how long it would take to try and shutdown the GPL and maybe impose a kind of governmental type permit to view/use Open Source Software.

Already we have had github locking out some people due to where they live, I am sure that will expand. That is why I think we need a networked Source Code Control system that cannot be influenced politically.

Uh well what about when they ban all Linux builds containing commits from Chinese contributers?

They banned some Russian individuals working for sanction companies from being Linux kernel maintainers, banning contributions isn't much of a stretch.

alwayshasbeen.jpeg

Reply on news.ycombinator.com