On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 4:28 AM Erik Moeller wrote:
> If you want to impose _additional restrictions_ on a person for stuff
> they download from you, that actually requires proactive agreement
> from the user to those restrictions at the time they download the
> thing.
>
> If you don't obtain this
Den tors 30 mars 2023 kl 02:33 skrev Lauren Worden :
>
> Is the BLOOM RAIL license [
> https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigscience/license ] proprietary?
>
Yes. The common definition is that if it is not open source, it is
proprietary. But you don't need to take my word for it.
> So I expect the B
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:49 PM Jan Ainali wrote:
> On the contrary, I think it is important to, as early as possible, deter all
> these attempts
> to weaken the concept of "open" and that we as a movement need to take a hard
> stance
> against them.
I agree with Jan on this. Licenses are the
Hi,
>> My understanding is that is not proprietary, and the only reason it
doesn't qualify for Open Source Initiative approval is because of these use
restrictions:
>
> To generate or disseminate information or content, in any context (e.g.
posts, articles, tweets, chatbots or other kinds of auto
I find it rather telling that the negative responses while recorded that
there is no indication of plans to explore or address these concerns. At
the very least a tokinistic inclusion in the email to say the WMF through
the Universal Code of Conduct project team will continue to address the
concern