> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
And the 4-clause BSD license says:
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the organization.
Both of these licenses are not just non-controversially open-source licenses; they're such central open-source licenses that IIRC much of the debate on the adoption of the OSD was centered on ensuring that they, or the more difficult Artistic license, were not excluded.
It's sort of nonsense to talk about neural networks being "open source" or "not open source", though, because there isn't source code that they could be built from. The nearest equivalent would be the training materials and training procedure, but running that is not very similar to recompilation: it costs millions of dollars and doesn't produce the same results every time.
My personal feeling is that almost every project (I'll hedge a little because life is complicated) should prefer an OSI certified license and NOT make up their own license (even if that new license is "just" a modification of an existing license). License proliferation[1] is generally considered a Bad Thing for good reason.
What makes us comfortable with the "traditional open source licenses" is that people have been using them for decades and nothing bad has happened. But that's mostly because breaking an open source license is rarely litigated against, not because we have some special knowledge of what those licenses mean and how to abide by that
OK, fair enough. Pretend I said "not well understood" instead. The point is, the long-standing, well known licenses that have been around for decades are better understood that some random "I made up my own thing" license. And yes, some of that may be down to just norms and conventions, and yes, not all of these licenses have been tested in court. But I think most people would feel more comfortable using an OSI approved license, and are hesitant to foster the creation of even more licenses.
If nothing else, license proliferation is bad because of the combinatorics of understanding license compatibility issues. Every new license makes the number of permutations that much bigger, and creates more unknown situations.
A lot of open source, copyleft things already have attribution clauses. You're allowed commerical use of someone else's work already, regardless of scale. Attribution is a very benign ask.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_Attribution_Lice...
What I'm saying, if I'm saying anything at all, is that it might have been better to pick one of these existing licenses that has some attribution requirement, rather than adding to the license proliferation problem.
But is it really?
Sure, it may make some licenses incompatible with each other, but that's basically equivalent to whining about somebody releasing their code in GPL and it can't be used in a project that uses MIT...
And your argument that the terms are "less understood" really doesn't matter. It's not like people know the Common Public Attribution License in and out either. (I'm going to argue that 99% devs don't even know the GPL well.) Poor drafting could be an issue, but I don't think this is the case here.
And on an ideological standpoint, I don't think people should be shamed into releasing their code under terms they aren't 100% comfortable with.
"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
By having a clause that discriminates based on revenue, it cannot be Open Source.
If they had required everyone to provide attribution in the same manner, then we would have to examine the specifics of the attribution requirement to determine if it is compatible... but since they discriminate, it violates the open source definition, and no further analysis is necessary.
* Small companies may use it without attribution
* Anyone may use it with attribution
The first may not be OSI compatible, but if the second license is then it’s fair to call the offering open weights, in the same way that dual-licensing software under GPL and a commercial license is a type of open source.
Presumably the restriction on discrimination relates to license terms which grant _no_ valid open source license to some group of people.
OSI purism is deleterious and has led to industry capture.
Non-viral open source is simply a license for hyperscalers to take advantage. To co-opt offerings and make hundreds of millions without giving anything back.
We need more "fair source" licensing to support sustainable engineering that rewards the small ICs rather than mega conglomerate corporations with multi-trillion dollar market caps. The same companies that are destroying the open web.
This license isn't even that protective of the authors. It just asks for credit if you pass a MAU/ARR threshold. They should honestly ask for money if you hit those thresholds and should blacklist the Mag7 from usage altogether.
The resources put into building this are significant and they're giving it to you for free. We should applaud it.
The majority of open source code is contributed by companies, typically very large corporations. The thought of the open source ecosystem being largely carried by lone hobbyist contributors in their spare time after work is a myth. There are such folks (heck I'm one of them) and they are appreciated and important, but their perception far exceeds their real role in the open source ecosystem.
Being required to display branding in that way contradicts "run the program as you wish".
I think basically everybody considers CC BY to be open source, so a strictly more permissive license should be too, I think.
nothing gucci there