OSD !== Open Source. All OSD is Open Source, not all Open Source is OSD. You are free to disagree, but the OSI has chosen (more accurately forced to choose) very explicitly to only define and trademark OSD. There's really not much more to the conversation then that.
This is a really poor take, to try and put a firewall between mathematics and language, implying something that only has conceptual understanding root in language is incapable of reasoning in mathematical terms.
You're also correlating "mathematics" and "calculation". Who cares about calculation, as you say, we have calculators to do that.
Mathematics is all just logical reasoning and exploration using language, just a very specific, dense, concise, and low level language. But you can always take any mathematical formula and express it as "language" it will just take far more "symbols"
This might be the worse take on this entire comment section. And I'm not even an overly hyped vibe coder, just someone who understands mathematics
I think some of the distinction here is that the more recent "bare LLMs" have been more purpose built, augmented with "agent" specific RL, and in general more fine tuned for the requirements of "agents". Things such as specific reasoning capabilities, tool calling, etc.
These all make the "bare LLMs" better suited to be used within the "agent" harness.
I think the more accurate term would be "agentic LLMs" instead of calling them "agents" outright. As to why its the case now, probably just human laziness and colloquialisms.
I think they may be jumping on the "shit on AI assisted project" bandwagon. I am by no means reaching for ai tools at every turn, but to suggest its plagiarized is laughable.
Thats a fair (no pun) question! The reason "source available" exists is to starkly seperate it from "open source", yet to your point, they certainly can be both. However it is reductive/pointless to say my code is "open source and source available" since of course the source is available if its open source.
This highlights my knee-jerk reaction to your initial post. My original definition I provided for Source Available was "[viewable but not OSD]". This is overly restrictive since can be both, but to assign any meaning at all Source Available it needs to be defined in relation to "Open Source", otherwise its meaningless.
All code is shared "under someones own copyright and terms". Whether you use pre-existing words or not doesn't define if its open-source or source-available. I can write a license right now that I maintain the copyright, and written with my own terms that complies with the OSD. We happen to have a collection of existing licenses that have been vetted, but it isn't a exclusionary whitelist.
I'll reiterate, "source available" can only be defined as not OSD code that is viewable. Everything else is entirely open to implementation and interpretation.
This is the largest problem with the term. This is in stark contract to examples like "Fair Source" which has a legal definition like the OSD, and a entity behind it stewarding that definition [0], while being a subset of Source Available. All fair source is source available, not all source available is fair source.
Yet, fair source doesn't fall into your definition of source available.
I'm going to respond here assuming you are being genuine and not facetious or sarcastic (even though I am hoping you were).
"Source available" doesn't in any way mean "you can sue anyone that uses your code for any reason...". The irony of highlighting the trickery of these terms then you yourself perpetuating wrong definitions is... amusing.
"Source available" is by definition ill-defined, in the sense that "open source" is defined. There is no trademark, stewarding body, or legal entity behind "Source available". It only exists in relation to OSI defined "open source".
Which is to say, it is defined as code that does not fit the "Open Source Definition (OSD)" yet its source code is viewable. Maybe its modifiable, maybe its free to use, but maybe its neither. Thats all anyone can factually attribute to the definition of "Source available". Nothing about "suing ... for any reason".
Again, hoping you were making your comment in good fun, otherwise it doesn't look too good for you.
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada/EU: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada/EU: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
Would love to hear how this compares to another popular go based full text search engine (with a not too dissimilar name) https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve?
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
Can you describe the connection between the "VM" and the "MPC" implementation. The project is described as a VM for Multiparty computation, but (currently) doesn't do MPC? Implying its currently just a certain kind of VM?
Genuinely curious, fan of any tooling that makes writing MPC protocols easier.
Aside from the MongoDB of it all, wheres the issue with adding "AI" here? As I understand it this is just vector types, similarity searches, embedding indexes, and RAG capabilities.
All of which are just data storage/retrieval mechanics and custom types. This isn't adding some omnipotent AI agent to run/manage/optimize your DB or otherwise turn it into some blackbox gizmo.
> To be fair I haven't kept up-to-date with blockchains, but I find it hard to believe that any existing blockchain could solve this. Transparency logs can.
Any insight as to why you think blockchains can't handle this?
The only fundemental difference between blockchains and transparency logs is the trust assumptions and censorship resistence. Its fairly easy to reason about a transparency log as a permissioned blockchain. Conversely, a blockchain could be seen as a permissionless transparency log.
It is accurate, this is how BUSL works :). Its irrevocable, the licensed code MUST convert to a license that is compatible with the GPL within a maximum of 4 years. It can be any license, so long as its compatible, and it can of course be sooner than 4 years.
I agree with your sentiment, its escrowed open source, which might be a turn-off for some I guess.