> The document says they will open source “when applicable”. If open sourcing wouldn’t benefit the public, then they aren’t obligated to do it.
From their charter: “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"
I just thought it might be important to provide more context. See the other comments for a discussion on "when applicable". I think this misses the point here.
> Care to explain your point or link to a relevant comment?
Explanation: Reducing the discussion to the two words "when applicable" (especially when ripped out of context) might be relevant in the legal sense, but totally misses the bigger picture of the discussion here. I don't like being dragged on those tangents when they can be expected to only distract from the actual point being discussed - or result in a degraded discussion about the meaning of words. I could, for instance, argue that it says "when" and not "if" which wouldn't get us anywhere and hence is a depressing and fruitless endeavor. It isn't as easy as that and the matter needs to be looked at broadly, considering all relevant aspects and not just two words.
For reference, see the top comment, which clearly mentions the "when applicable" in context and then outlines that, in general, OpenAI doesn't seem to do what they have promised.
And here's a sub thread that goes into detail on the two words:
From their charter: “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"
I just thought it might be important to provide more context. See the other comments for a discussion on "when applicable". I think this misses the point here.