[cmur]

if something requires an EULA it isn’t open at all, it is just publicly available. By your logic, public services are “open source.” There are myriad corporations that release actual open source software that is truly free to use. If you experience massive success with anything regarding Meta’s LLMs, they’re going to take a cut according to their EULA.

[eduction]

You’re certainly entitled to the opinion that an agreement (as in EULA) is distinct from a license (as in GPL, MIT etc).

But many legal minds close to this issue have moved to the position that there is no meaningful distinction, at least when it comes to licenses like GPL.

For example: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/10/13/Wrong-About-GPLs

[bunderbunder]

I'm trying to figure out the logic that makes "free for commercial use with less than 700 million monthly active users" less open than "free for non-commercial use", which is the traditional norm for non-copyleft open source machine learning products. But I just can't get there. Could somebody spell it out for me?

[koolala]

Ideals vs. Gut Instinct