Post

Simon Willison
@simonwillison.net

Which means it's not OSI compliant, which is my bar for calling something "open source" over just "open weights"

0 reposts3 likes

Pekka Lund
@pekka.bsky.social

Even if we only accept their definitions, I think it would still be OSI compliant, just not OSI approved if it hasn't been submitted to their review. OSI approved licenses have similar attribution requirements, so that in itself isn't a problem.

opensource.orgCommon Public Attribution License Version 1.01. “Definitions” 1.0.1 “Commercial Use” means distribution or otherwise making the Covered Code available to a third party. 1.1 “Contributor” means each entity that creates or contributes to the creat...
Pekka Lund
@pekka.bsky.social

I don't think the conditionality of that display requirement would be the kind of use preventing discrimination that OSI forbids. At least the idea that the code isn't open if the license allows smaller projects to skip such display requirement would be kind of silly.