> in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone?
Most of the qualities that come with open source (which also come with llama 3), matter a lot.
But no, it is not a binary, yes or no thing, where something is either open source and useful or not.
Instead, there is a very wide spectrum is licensing agreements. And even if something does not fit the very specific and exact definition of open source, it can still be "almost" there and therefore be basically as useful.
I am objecting to the idea that any slight deviation from the highly specific definition of open source means that it no longer "counts".
Even though, If something is 99.9% the same as open source, then you get 99.9% of the benefits, and it is dishonest to say that it is significantly different than open source.
If I build a train, put it into service, and say to the passengers “this has 99.9% of the required parts from the design”, would you ride on that train? Would you consider that train 99.9% as good at being a train? Or is it all-or-nothing?
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point about there still being value in mostly-open software, but I want to challenge your notion that you still get most of the benefit. I think it being less than 100% open does significantly decay the value, since now you will always feel uneasy adopting these models, especially into an older existing company.
You can imagine a big legacy bank having no problem adopting MIT code in their tech. But something with an esoteric license? Even if it’s probably fine to use? It’s a giant barrier to their adoption, due to the risk to their business.
That’s also not to say I’m taking it for granted. I’m incredibly thankful that this exists, and that I can download it and use it personally without worry. And the huge advancement that we’re getting, and the public is able to benefit from. But it’s still not the same as true 100% open licensing.
> If I build a train, put it into service, and say to the passengers “this has 99.9% of the required parts from the design”, would you ride on that train?
Well if the missing piece is a cup holder on the train, yes absolutely! It would absolutely be as good as the binary "contains a cup holder" train design.
So the point stands. For almost everyone, these almost open source licenses are good enough for their usecase and the limitations apply to almost noone.
And you have chosen a wonderful example that exactly proves my point. In your example, the incorrect people are claiming that "99.9%" of a train is dangerous to ride in, while ignoring the fact that the missing .1% is the cup holders.
> You can imagine a big legacy bank
Fortunately, most people aren't running a big legacy bank. So the point stands, once again.
> It’s a giant barrier to their adoption
Only if you are at a big legacy bank, in your example, or similar. If you aren't in that very small percentage of the market, you are fine.
Most of the qualities that come with open source (which also come with llama 3), matter a lot.
But no, it is not a binary, yes or no thing, where something is either open source and useful or not.
Instead, there is a very wide spectrum is licensing agreements. And even if something does not fit the very specific and exact definition of open source, it can still be "almost" there and therefore be basically as useful.
I am objecting to the idea that any slight deviation from the highly specific definition of open source means that it no longer "counts".
Even though, If something is 99.9% the same as open source, then you get 99.9% of the benefits, and it is dishonest to say that it is significantly different than open source.