Jean Louis

Sorry for my harsh words, I am learning manners from LLMs. :-)

I am on XMPP: [email protected] or e-mail: bugs AT gnu.support

That sounds so good, and tell me I should take some money and send you, but I can send US $200 in few weeks, as I am in locked country. Why you not have solution to submit it?

You see how Microsoft, Qwen, Mistral, they got MIT or Apache 2.0 licenses, those are free software.

I am sure you can license.

But if you already used someone's else work, you should follow their licensing. You can't be restricting what was not restricted, usually not.

If you have used the stable-diffusion License for their software, you likely cannot re-license it without first obtaining permission from the organization. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the licenses of any pre-existing works you may use. Ensure that the licenses are compatible with each other.

If you are a proponent of free software, it is advisable to select licenses that do not restrict your ability to keep your software free in the future.

If you yourself foster free software, then you should anyway choose such licenses that do not limit your future to make it free software.

If you need help understanding, I am here.

Perfect for my sales & marketing needs! 🛒✂️ No more Qwen2-VL hiccups, just straight-up magic with ByteDance's emoji-packed annotation pipeline! 📊📈 Different description levels = consistent, top-notch annotations. Need more time for evaluation, I'll tell you later more.

That looks like nice graphics generation. Problem is how you falsely advertise you are promoting "open source" but you have proprietary license that does not conform to definition of Open Source and Free Software:

The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/osd

What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Word "Open" as in "Open Source" - Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

I find it deceptive that some companies do not put attention on licensing, actually, I do think that managers know what they are doing and are actively and falsely promoting "Open Source" while they are not open source.

There are three ways to go from here on:

1. Do the most beneficial act for society and truly make it Open Source and Free Software by using some of Open Source or Free Software approved licensed: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

2. To make your statements correct, remove the words Open Source from your page, and stop deceiving free software community or attracting them into proprietary software and datasets licenses.

3. Third option is to ignore this message, neglect it.

I just hope whatever software or datasets are issues that they are free software as only that way the society truly wins. Unlike META's LLAMA that is falsely promoted as "Open Source" though is proprietary.