# Case-in-Point: Zuckerberg's blog on Open Source

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/case-in-point-zuckerbergs-blog-on-open-source/579>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Created:** [September 23, 2024, 11:37am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/case-in-point-zuckerbergs-blog-on-open-source/579 "2024-09-23T11:37:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nick](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/nick/32/542_2.png) [@nick](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/nick)\
**Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 6:01pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/case-in-point-zuckerbergs-blog-on-open-source/579/11 "2024-09-27T18:01:31Z")

</div>

> [@Shamar](#):
>
> Simply because Meta just need to tweak the licenses and distribute a bunch of synthetic data (or even a subset of the actual training dataset) to pass as Open Source AI under current definition.  
> Something Zuckerberg might announce overnight.

> [@Shamar](#):
>
> No, just like distributing obfuscated source code or the output of a preprocessor wouldn’t be enough to satisfy the Open Source definition.

Under the current definition, one must provide the complete data information from the original data. That goes way beyond just providing synthetic data or “obfuscated data” and is a much better / preferred form to study the released system.

The [FAQ](https://hackmd.io/@opensourceinitiative/osaid-faq) has just been updated and should address the doubts raised here.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/case-in-point-zuckerbergs-blog-on-open-source/579)._