Open source was never about doing stuff for free - at least not originally.

It’s about the definition of ownership. What does it mean to own a program?

When you distribute the program, you must also distribute the code for it. That’s open source.

It's not about the definition of ownership, either. The author of FOSS software retains ownership, unless they explicitly convey it to someone else.

It's about how software is licensed--the terms and conditions under which someone can make a copy. That's why it's called the GNU Public License, or the MIT License, and why there's a LICENSE file.

The mere act of copying does not convey ownership, and never has.

Yes and no. It isn't about ownership of the project as a whole, but it is about ownership of your copy of the software.

I'm an attorney who specialized in copyright law, and I don't even know what you're trying to say.

You are likely too much in it to see the other side.

Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it aims for, but then structured into the copyright world of licensing to use and distribute. It is nothing but a workaround, and copyleft uses it to make the default an even stronger case for reuse (by including sources).

In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).

No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution.

OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".

I am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html

> Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant

The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him.

> In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).

I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon.

Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.

I apologize for intruding on your personal conversation on a public forum.

What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.

I think the license was the best tool available for the ideology around ownership.

Ok, but this kind of seems like semantic quibbling.

At least since I've been programming (early 2000s), open source has been almost entirely free as in beer. Whatever the origins of the movement, as it actually exists today and has for a long time, both definitions of free are integral parts of the concept. If anyone ever uses the term "open source" in the widely understood, colloquial sense, a dozen eager HN commenters always jump in to explain the exact bounds of the various terms in their own idiolect. I can occasionally enjoy a good debate about semantics, except on HN it's basically always orthogonal to whatever issue is actually being discussed. I've been reading on HN about how the term has been misappropriated for 10 years and I'm very ready to move on.

The parent's point is that if you are looking to make some money, putting a bunch of code on github with an open source license and helpful readme is extremely unlikely to move you towards that goal.

How does this compare to the conspiracy theories floating around?

I’ve been hearing something like this from very disreputable sources.

Aliens and advanced technology aren't going to be involved.

Yes they are.

That’s confusing because I was taught whether something is vowel or consonant is the spoken, not written, truth.

“Vampires pretending to be humans pretending to be vampires.”

Right but they might be incredibly interested in learning about them.

They just copy humans. Thats it. So if it’s the sort of thing a human finds interesting…

There’s no efficient way to do anything with homomorphic encryption.

What worries me is the non-frontier models, which is what the frontier models eventually become.

The small open models are getting better and better too.

And why worry so much about a frontier models - own weights. The model doesn’t - actually don’t quote me on that, maybe it does.

If a model does something sneaky, it could easily grab the weights for a small model and run it on foreign, compromised infrastructure.

AI virus’ are a thing of the future, but not a sci-fi future, and real one.

Maybe one reason it’s so scary is the murky origin of COVID-19.

Silicon Valley: “I’m not saying we should murder the competition, because that would be illegal. But is there some way we could … well .. maybe … hmm … I’m sure you’ll think of something!”

I would love to move to Vienna. Really, I’d sell my house and go right now if I could.

I can’t. Immigration and language barriers alone would prevent (even though I have family there).

My point is just that Vienna doesn’t have to deal with tons of people constantly showing up.

I’ve never known a security team to be in the position to say “no.” The role of security teams vary a lot from one organization to another.

But generally they can make you aware of the tradeoffs you are making, or serve as a kind of quality control that generally does not want to be asked questions.