Some news from the Apertus project, they released smaller models. Interesting work.
This is an interesting proposal, let's hope it gets picked up and appear in more licenses.
A very balanced set of recommendations from the SFC around LLM uses. It's just the beginning and still lacks a bit in details. It's very welcome though and I look forward to their updates.
Or why modern economics mostly loose the plot when you try to factor Open Source in there simplistic theories.
The latest move by the US government treating LLMs like dangerous weapons tells something about the geopolitical moment. Can we collectively raise to the challenge and build on cooperation instead? It'd be a much better position than assuming governments or big companies will make the right choices for everyone else in isolation.
In part useful, in part satire I think. Still it gives a good idea of various governance models in FOSS communities.
More an experiment than something I'd recommend for real. Still it shows there's a gap we need to close in the licenses available. Let's hope the OSI and the FSF will do strong moves toward closing this gap.
Not sure it warranted the "dumb" mention in the title. Still it's likely a good idea to have a list of the ways projects can die.
Weird decisions, this is really backwards...
Indeed, a reminder that the two concepts are not necessarily aligned. It kind of misses the point about corporate Open Source with no open contributions which can be easily captured as well. But indeed for the individual side project you might not need the whole burden of issues and contributions, you get to choose.
This piece is strongly worded but the logic is sound. We see many examples of power plays in guise of "innovation" which lead to killing openly sharing (and so killing real innovation). It's urgent to fight back and ensure things stay open.
It totally makes sense. If you're a FOSS project you have to invest in getting more long term contributors, which requires mentoring. The contributions themselves are not something to maximise. I wish more communities would follow that path.
Looks like some governments noticed that they can move away from GitHub and are testing the waters. Good idea!
This is indeed time to move away from GitHub if you're still there. There are many viable alternatives.
Good first half of the post, there's indeed more paths out of GitHub than jumping from a centralised system to another one (even though Codeberg and Forgejo are much saner from a governance standpoint). We'll see what the future brings.
The FSF is now weighting in on the Euro-Office vs OnlyOffice situation. You have to respect the spirit of the AGPL and can't take away freedom with extra clauses. Seems to make sense to me.
Can crates.io make things easier to secure? I do think so. But this post is right that we shouldn't forget the social aspect of the whole supply chain security conversation.
Well, what can I say? This is excellent news and I'm excited to see it happen. Let's hope more governments do the same. It'll take a while of course, so we'll have to be patient.
You'd wish more projects would put such measures in place.
I personally think this is where it'll head after the bubble pops. We should be able to recover enough material to have something viable to run locally. The question will be "where the updated models come from?", it might be the public sector helping there and hopefully those will be truly FOSS and ethical (like Apertus).