The open source licensing war is over

I think the author&#x27;s characterization of &quot;Open Source Rambos&quot; caring more about the licensing than the software is unfair: we learned through bitter experience that if you care about the software, you need to care about the license first.<p>Today, licensing is something that many (probably most) developers are able to ignore without repercussions. That wasn&#x27;t always true, perhaps won&#x27;t be true in future, and isn&#x27;t true even now for those whose businesses need to sell their software or are simply a little more scrupulous about how their software is made.<p>As someone who lived through the earlier era, it&#x27;s hard not to see this as a potentially fatal weakness: an ability to bring down large chunks of the ecosystem with a single determined actor invoking legal mayhem.

<p><pre><code> In the past, Meta had restricted use of its LLMs to research purposes, but with Llama 2, Meta opened it up; the only restriction is that it can’t be used for commercial purposes. Only a handful of companies have the computational horsepower to deploy it at scale (Google, Amazon, and very, very few others). </code></pre> If the author can&#x27;t even get this right, no point engaging with the rest

&gt; As someone who lived through the earlier era, it&#x27;s hard not to see this as a potentially fatal weakness: an ability to bring down large chunks of the ecosystem with a single determined actor invoking legal mayhem.<p>I assume you&#x27;re talking about MSFTs FUD proxy war against Linux by way of frivolous SCO lawsuits against everyone they could think to file against?