this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
452 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

61774 readers
6109 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It is defined legally in the EU

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/

There are different requirements if the provider falls under "Free and open licence GPAI model providers"

Which is legally defined in that piece of legislation

otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.

Meta has done a lot for Open source, to their credit. React Native is my preferred framework for mobile development, for example.

Again- I fully acknowledge they are a large evil megacorp but without evil large megacorps we would not have Open Source as we know it today. There are certain realities we need to accept based on the system we live in. Open Source only exists because corporations benefit off of this shared infrastructure.

Our laws should encourage this type of behavior and not restrict it. By limiting the scope, it gives Meta less incentive to open source the code behind their AI models. We want the opposite. We want to incentivize