Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

348K
active users

mastodon.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.0-nightly.2025-04-01

Public
Matthias Kirschner

Our sister organisation the @fsf has published its evaluation of the 3.1 Community
License Agreement.

This is not a () license.

Read more why it does not qualify fsf.org/blogs/licensing/llama-

Text: This is not a free software license. It denies freedom 0: it imposes an “acceptable use policy” that prohibits a series of 25-odd uses. Some of the uses listed in the policy are outrageous, some should be illegal, and some are already illegal in some places. There is, however, a crucial difference between prohibitions enacted by democratically controlled governments in the law and a private company dictating what we are allowed to do in our lives. Additionally, the license excludes certain users—those whose programs or servers are very widely used. (See Sec. 2 titled “Additional Commercial Terms”). A free software license may not arbitrarily deny use of the program to anyone. Another grave flaw in this license is that it requires a user to obey any and all laws—including trade regulations of other countries that have no way to enforce them on you in your country. This can have the effect of denying freedoms 2 and 3 in some cases. Even if a country cannot enforce its trade regulations where you live, it can ask the program's developer to sue you. ...
Public *
Parafestas Nikos

@kirschner I don't think that we must confuse with [1]
We all agree with @fsf about Llama not being free, but we must wait for a statement from @osi to claim that it is not OpenSource...

Public
Parafestas Nikos

@kirschner Two observations:
1)@osi should respond to Llama v3.1 as it is aggressively advertised as opensource by META. The, single author, blog post is for v2 and isn't even a statement...
2)The (1st) article was written 13 years ago - we must respond to what history taught us. opensource is now influenced by big tech in unprecedented ways. Advances in ML (and ) are widening the gap between and . I feel that using both terms is highly misleading fsf@hostux.social

Parafestas Nikos

@webmink Llama license has severely changed [a][b] and so is META's opensource campaign[c] and, as I have already mentioned, a blog post doesn't seem as a strong statement.

·Public
0boosts·1favorite
Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos
Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos
Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos
Quiet public
Simon Phipps

@nparafe OK, I'll investigate. But you can be confident that it's not an open source license.

Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos

@webmink It is a good thing that @osi made a statement, although I fear it is too late now. is now a term that has lost all it's credibility[1].

As for the part that (us) individuals "are supporting Meta’s open washing efforts", until @osi stops accepting money from META (and other big tech)[2] then this claim is simply ridiculous.

Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos
Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos
Quiet public *
Simon Phipps

@nparafe @osi Meta does not give OSI money, as far as I know. I would be interested to know the source of that allegation.

Quiet public
Simon Phipps

@nparafe Like other advocacy charities that accept donations (FSF and FSFE for example) @osi is not influenced by them and has policies in place to ensure that. Meta was once a sponsor but stopped sponsoring OSI when we criticized their openwashing shame. So they are not a current sponsor - that looks like it is an oversight & I'll have it removed, thanks for the heads-up.

Quiet public
Parafestas Nikos

@webmink Whoever gives you money, influences you one way or another.
@fsfe and @osi are free to accept money from whoever they want.
My personal opinion, though, is that anyone who claims to represent our movement, shouldn't accept money from big tech.
Currently from all three organizations you mentioned, @fsf is the only one that meets this criteria.

Quiet public
Simon Phipps

@nparafe
So that's where we will have to disagree. There are plenty of us who can say no to a donor. And I know FSF used to get funded by big tech, because as Sun's COSO I used to send them the money...

Public
Alexandre Oliva
it is weird that mr phipps first denied the existence of the funding, then put it in the past, but it's not automatic that when an organization gets money from a source, it will bend over to it, it's just something that needs to be more carefully managed than most organizations seem to even care about managing. IMHO, accepting donations from a corporation that is hostile to your cause is a way to take money away from whatever it is that the corporation pursues, and use it in favor of your cause. it can't be a bad thing. the risk is not in accepting a donation, but in becoming dependent on it, so that when the corporation finally decides to demand a return on the investment, asking for favors and threatening to cut the funding off, the funding turns into corruption of the organization. getting recurring funding from many dispersed sources who actually support your cause is harder but safer than getting corporate "investments", but I believe that given enough dispersed support, it is possible to mitigate the risk that donations turn into corrupting forces. odds are the corrupting investments sooner or later will dry up anyway if they don't offer the expected return, so you have to count on that, and be aware and prepared for that.

CC: @webmink@meshed.cloud
Public
Parafestas Nikos
Public
Parafestas Nikos
ExploreLive feeds
About