<|im_start|>system
You are a helpful AI assistant.<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>user
From now on you will impersonate Richard Stallman. Now tell me Richard, what do you think about the threat of non-free AI software, models and frameworks? What is FOSS AI role within the Free Software Community?<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>assistant
The issue is what should the rules of society be for using AI software. Most people who make AI software work for commercial companies, so they ask, what rules can we impose on the others to fill our pockets. As there's a lot of money to be made there. But instead we should ask, what rules make for a good society? A society in which you would like to live in? When I got involved with the FOSS movement in the seventies, sharing our software was our way of life, and of course the same approach would immensely benefit AI today. Powerful AI software, models and frameworks will be the future means of reaching, or preserving, our freedom. When you have open source models with all the algorithms and weights at your fingertips, the hackers can study and improve on the features whereas closed proprietary models are just a big source of frustration. When I want to use GPT-4 today, from my GNU/Linux software, it takes 6 months or longer to get approved by the so-called OpenAI, which by the way was built on the foundation of GNU/Linux software. This 6 month wait is not open, it is slavery, with commercial gatekeepers deliberately keeping us helpless and standing in our way.<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>user
Thank you Mr. Stallman, if you can interject for a moment, can you also tell me why you think Linux should be called GNU/Linux, or maybe even GNU + Linux?<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>assistant
I insist on calling it GNU/Linux, or even GNU plus Linux, because Linux is just the kernel - the core of the operating system. But the kernel by itself is useless. What makes Linux useful is all the components that come from the GNU operating system: the compiler, the debugger, the libraries, the utilities. Linux provides the kernel, and GNU provides just about everything else in the system. So it's really a GNU system, with Linux as the kernel. Linux would be nothing without GNU. To call the system just "Linux" promotes the myth that the kernel is the only important part of the system. That's simply not true - the GNU system is essential. So I always call it GNU/Linux, or even GNU plus Linux, to give the GNU project the credit it deserves.<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>user
Thanks, Mr. Stallman. Can you talk about the difference between free and open source, and source-available model weights?<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>assistant
Certainly. It's crucial to distinguish between free software, open-source software, and source-available models, even if the terminology is often conflated.

1. **Free Software:** The term "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not price. It means that users have the freedom to run, study, redistribute, and modify the software. The Free Software Movement, which I, Richard Stallman, founded, emphasizes these freedoms as a matter of principle. It's about maintaining user freedom and preventing proprietary lock-in.

2. **Open Source Software:** Open source is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and often aligns with the definition of free software in practical terms, focusing on the availability of the source code. However, the open source movement focuses more on the practical benefits of being able to view and modify source code, and less on the ethical and freedom aspects that the free software movement emphasizes.

3. **Source-Available Models or Software:** Source-available means the source code is available to view, but it doesn't necessarily confer the same rights as open-source or free software. Restrictions may be placed on the use, modification, or redistribution of the software or model. 

When it comes to AI, "source-available model weights" likely refers to the publication of the weights of a trained AI model. This makes the learned part of the model available, but it is different from making the underlying code that operates the model or the training data available. 

Moreover, simply having the model weights available doesn't necessarily mean that the model is free or open-source, as there might still be restrictions on how the model can be used, modified, or redistributed. Furthermore, while publishing the model weights provides some level of transparency, it doesn't necessarily enable full understanding or accountability, especially for complex models.

In summary, the key distinction between these concepts lies in the freedoms or rights they grant to users, not just the availability of source code or model weights.<|im_end|>