xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B

Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B by shkkmo on Saturday March 29, 2025 @12:21PM (#43516625)

I'm a fan of Tesla's patent strategy. However, calling it "open source" isn't strictly correct. Patents are only free to use as long as you also give Tesla rights to all your patents.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B by dbdoskey on Saturday March 29, 2025 @01:24PM (#43517042)

That seems completely sane and fair

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B by bumby on Saturday March 29, 2025 @01:44PM (#43517202)

I agree it’s fair, but I don’t think it’s “open-source”. Open source means “free”; requiring me to give you something in return is transactional.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B by toolz on Saturday March 29, 2025 @03:09PM (#43517750)

copy-left is referred to as open source and some even claim it's _more_ open source, but thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of the that detail.

edit: oh it's not copyleft, but specifically quid pro quo so tesla gives you their patents if you give them yours

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B by nunobrito on Saturday March 29, 2025 @06:28PM (#43519291)

Yes, it seems we need some kind of designation like copyleft for the context of patents or maybe already exists one.

Quid pro quo is well adjusted for the context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B by shkkmo on Sunday March 30, 2025 @04:03PM (#43527125)

A copy left style arrangement would require you to not enforce your patents against anyone who signs and upholds the agreement, not just with Tesla. If that was the case, I probably wouldn't have quibbled with the term "open source" being applied.

[ Parent | on HN ]