It continues to be frustrating that Elon Musk, who is pretty easy to impugn as hypocritical and is transparently primarily pursuing the suit out of a personal vendetta, is the only person who seems to have the resources to bring a suit at all. A lot of people, from AI researchers to developers building on their stuff, felt betrayed by the 2019 move to stop releasing code, weights, information about datasets, to the public. People have good reasons to distrust Microsoft, and their stated reasoning for the decision is obviously bullshit. But it really seems like there's no legal remedy available against this increasingly pervasive tactic of courting the goodwill of an open community and then pulling the ladder when an org thinks they can profit from doing so. GPL violations are famously hard to enforce, "embrace extend extinguish" seems to face no legal challenge because you need someone big to claim direct financial damage and that's infeasible for a public common good. There's no legal remedy for this kind of situation, but many people are substantially wronged. Their time and effort was poured into something that decided it didn't owe them anything, even the continued commitment to openness that drew them in to help. I'd love to hear a lawyer's take on it. What can anyone do about this? Is it just stupid to assume the research and open-source communities could operate without being exploited by secretive corporate entities?
The case involving Elon Musk and Microsoft touches on the broader debate about the commercialization of AI and the responsibilities of companies that initially benefited from open-source contributions. It raises questions about the ethical implications of shifting away from open-source commitments and the impact on the community that supported the development. It’s clear that the community values transparency and the spirit of collaboration that open-source embodies. The tension between these values and the proprietary interests of large corporations is a topic of ongoing discussion in the tech world. The conversation around this issue is important, and it’s crucial for the community to continue advocating for openness and fairness in the development and use of AI technologies.
It's not drastically different from the general tension between tech companies and open-source maintainer communities in the last decade, but it's especially frustrating that OpenAI capitalized on this tension to present itself as an alternative to this model, apparently (by their own admission) as a hollow marketing ploy
