The commit $1 billion in tokens to "defenders". $1 billion directly to QA for open source projects [1] which would write 100% code coverage, run ASAN and fuzzers would be more effective.

But of course there would be no marketing.

[1] From whom you stole everything in the first place.

▲

fritzo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm as frustrated as the next open source maintainer, but "stole" goes too far. We gave that code away with pride, knowing the world would be a better place.

▲

knome 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Few works are released directly to the public domain. It is my understanding that the public domain doesn't even exist in all legal jurisdictions.

Most people license out the software under specific requirements and prohibitions. BSD requires attribution. GPL variants require adherence to copyleft when distributing derivative works. A little under half of all github repos don't even have a license, which means that though the source is published, no one has any license under which to copy it or derive new works from it.

So far as I have seen, whether aggregating and munging these works into abstract LLM weights constitutes fair use is still legally unclear. If not deemed fair use, it is almost certainly a massive violation of copyright.

	▲	nomel 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You can read code, rewrite the functionality yourself, and sell it, and not be at odds with copyright. Open source does NOT protect against reimplementation. See Java lawsuits. If you don't want your code to be used as possible inspiration, then you are not actually for open source, and are using the wrong license. The licenses are legal bindings, not moral bindings. "Don't use any concept found within this code" would be a license that doesn't really fit with any current copyright law, and it wouldn't allow any software to exist, except that made in the 70's.

▲

lukewarm707 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Worth noting that the ai giants 'stole' from open source, but they also stole from closed source.

That is, they knowingly and willingly broke the law by stealing an unprecedented volume of proprietary, copyrighted materials.

Books: Bartz v. Anthropic

Films and TV: Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.

Music: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic

Photography: Getty Images v Stability AI

Journalism: Postmedia Network Inc., Torstar Corporation, The Globe and Mail Inc., and The Canadian Press v. Anthropic PBC

▲

unshavedyak 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doesn't this impl that licensing was respected? I feel like it wasn't

▲

SolarNet 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Speak for yourself. I don't see every model being released under GPL after having read the entire source code as a step of creating their binary artifacts (model files).

The point of the open source I work on is to contribute to a commons, not to have it stolen so that it can be used to destroy those commons, used for the profit of techbros, and used to justify the murder of children.

▲

orangedog 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be pedantic, would that not be marketing?

To be further pedantic, is that really stealing? They are disregarding copyright but was anything taken from anybody? I thought that was the old argument for piracy, ie, nobody was deprived of anything.

	▲	moregrist 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s marketing, but in a global good will sense of “look how much OpenAI cares about secure open source.” This works for established profitable brands that want to build / maintain a good public image. This isn’t the marketing needed by an unprofitable startup that wants to show hyper growth before its IPO. They need the “use our product or get pwned” kind of marketing.