From my experience, they don’t read articles either. People can have huge threads with hundreds of replies asking questions that already have been answered in the linked article. Though this is more common in politics and science. F1 media usually take one or two quotes and add 10 meaningless paragraphs that are not worth reading - this is where top comments come to help!
Hm, React is also open-source - it’s under the MIT license. A lot of people have jobs and develop or use products made with it. Probably there are other good examples that I’m not aware of.
However, here the license is more restrictive:
I wouldn’t say that’s a crazy requirement. A lot of businesses still could use it free of charge, because few have 700 million or more monthly active users. Besides, from the given text I’m not sure if this applies to the current version of the LLM or not.
You can’t fork it and change the license. You can’t use it to develop another LLM either:
So yeah, while they want to protect their commercial interests and put some restrictions in place, we should discuss the actual license agreement instead of talking about trust and beliefs. To me, it doesn’t look bad.