aviflombaum

So sick. We've been using this at work (we're a small team - 6 people) and it's just so much fun. Great work! Thank you so much!

What I’m saying is that a model not as large out performed in my prompt which is I imagine complex enough to cover a lot of consumers needs. Not to mention, with the right setup, it’d be easy to forward the prompts that need the foundational models through openrouter and only get charged API token prices per use.

I just watched a $3,000 laptop beat OpenAI’s best model at something that actually matters. Not at generating poetry or philosophical musings. Planning a real trip to Ecuador that you could book today without embarrassing yourself or blowing your budget. This wasn’t supposed to happen. TL;DR: OpenAI charges you $20/month to use GPT-5. I ran it against free models on my laptop. The laptop models didn’t just compete. They won at the stuff that actually matters. Your laptop doesn’t have shareholders. It has you.

OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things.

No one gets to "own" what open source means.

But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you?

You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law.

In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?

I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests.

"The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from?

"but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License.

It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?