I’ve seen this argument in one form or another for years, and my response has never changed:
Either information on the internet is free for everyone, or it isn’t.
You don’t get to publish information for the public to access and then turn around and say that some people are allowed to use it while others are not, especially if the distinction is based on whether someone might make money from it.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim information should be freely available and then try to restrict who can benefit from it.
Pick one. Either the information is free, or it isn’t.
I’ve seen this argument in one form or another for years, and my response has never changed:
Either information on the internet is free for everyone, or it isn’t.
You don’t get to publish information for the public to access and then turn around and say that some people are allowed to use it while others are not, especially if the distinction is based on whether someone might make money from it.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim information should be freely available and then try to restrict who can benefit from it.
Pick one. Either the information is free, or it isn’t.
Free as in beer, not speech.
The open source community has licenses associated with its code. Just because one can access it doesn’t mean they can fucking sell it.
Ok. Fine. Sure.
Not sure though what this has to do with llm companies making money. Since they write their own code and llms are trained on data… Like wikipedia.
🤷