I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything.
Of course they can - just because you contribute to open source, and do that because you also benefit from open source projects, doesn't mean you have to do absolutely everything under open source.
Especially considering OpenAI isn't even Microsoft's IP or codebase.
> I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything.
I'm not claiming that. Of course there is place for closed and open elements of their offerings. Let me clarify.
In the past, Microsoft was very aggressive about open source. When they realized this strategy of FUD brings little result, they changed their attitude 180 and decided to embrace it putting literal hearts everywhere.
Personally, I find it hypocritical. There is no love/hate, just business. They will use whatever strategy works to get their advantage. What I find strange is that people fell for it.
But why on this thread then, about GPT-3? It's not even their own company, IP or source to give away.
But even when Microsoft can't open source it because it's not theirs, we still have people posting in this thread that this is further evidence that Microsoft is hypocritical. It sounds a lot like a form of Confirmation Bias to me where any evidence is used as proof that Microsoft is 'anti-open-source'.
In my experience, I work at a completely different company than the one that Ballmer ran. Nearly everyone I talk to speaks of the "Ballmer era" in a negative light, and confirms that Satya literally turned the entire company on its head.
Many things happen every day that would never have happened under Ballmer.
It’s hostile to the GPL licence which means anything licensed under GPL can’t be used in Microsoft’s proprietary products.
I would personally say Microsoft wasn’t necessarily driven by anti open-source hate necessarily, they were just very anti-competitor. Microsoft tried to compete with their biggest competitor? Colour me shocked.
I don't think this should be seen in the light of "open source everything" but more that many see Microsoft doing open source not as part of "being good" but part of their age old "embrace extend extinguish" policy.
I don't know where people got the idea that companies can be "sincere." Sincerity is faithfully communicating your mental state to others. A company's mental state can change on a dime based on the decisionmaking of people who rely on the company for the degree of profit it generates. Any analog to sincerity that you think you see can probably be eliminated by firing one person after an exceptionally bad quarter (or an exceptionally good one.)
Of course they can - just because you contribute to open source, and do that because you also benefit from open source projects, doesn't mean you have to do absolutely everything under open source.
Especially considering OpenAI isn't even Microsoft's IP or codebase.