Remix clone Hacker News

When OpenAI surged ahead Meta ended up giving away its incredibly expensive to make llama model to reduce the OpenAI valuations.

Is DeepSeeks openness in part to reduce the big American tech companies?

▲

ALLTaken 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

Correlation isn't causation, I hate to say this, but here's really applicable. Facebook aka Meta has always been very opensource. Let's not talk about the license though. :)

Why do you imply malice in OSS companies? Or for profit companies opensourcing their models and sourcecode?

▲

mwigdahl 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

Personally I don't impute any malice whatsoever -- these are soulless corporate entities -- but a for-profit company with fiduciary duty to shareholders releasing expensive, in-house-developed intellectual property for free certainly deserves some scrutiny.

I tend to believe this is a "commoditize your complement" strategy on Meta's part, myself. No idea what Deepseek's motivation is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar strategy.

▲

eidifikwn24 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

In its ideal form, the sum of every participant commoditising their complements is how competition should benefit everyone — albeit at the expense of excess returns

▲

astrange 13 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Companies basically don't have fiduciary duties to shareholders. Also, Zuck has all the votes and can do whatever he wants.

	▲	ALLTaken 13 days ago \| parent [-]
		This I think is closer to the truth, there can be despite all fiducuiary duty an executive who just wants his way. I admire being bold. OSS is in my opinion a "Co-Operation request" and co-operation is in game theory a winning move.

▲

throwaway314155 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Meta is decidedly not an "OSS company" no matter how much they put out.

▲

SXX 14 days ago | parent [-]

In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers. Even companies centered around open source like Gitlab are usually generate most of their revenue of proprietary products or use liceses like BSL.

	▲	throwaway314155 14 days ago \| parent [-]
		> In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers. Okay then. Fine by me. > Gitlab Perfect example. They have OSS offerings. They are not an OSS _company_. This also serves to exclude the hundreds of VC-backed "totally open source 100% not going to enshittify this when our investors come asking for returns". Which, again, I'm fine with. The business model of the purist OSS company is not one that's been found to be terribly successful. Nevertheless, it _is_ one which has a sort of moral high ground at least. I would prefer to leave definitions as is so as to keep that distinction (of having the moral high ground) crystal clear. Does that make sense?

▲

phoronixrly 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If only totalitarian nation states used their subjects' money to undermine the dominance of US-based software vendors by releasing open-source alternatives created with slave labour... Oh wait, it can't work because software patents are here to the rescue again ... Wait, open source is communism? Always has been. /s