zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.

>>silico+z11
This. Even when we ignore the whole ethical aspect of "AI for benefit of humanity" and all that philosophic stuff, there are very real legal reasons why OpenAI should never have been allowed to switch to for profit. They were only able to circumvent this with their new dual company structure, but this should still not be legal.

>>sigmoi+i31
didn't Firefox / Mozilla set that precedent already?

>>yawnxy+p61
I can download the Firefox sources and everything else they produce.

That they make money incidentally to that is really no problem and a positive because it provides reasonable funding.

What if Firefox made a world beating browser by accident. Would they be justified in closing the source, restricting access and making people pay for it?

That's what OpenAI did.

>>dkjaud+X71
Anyway, to answer your question, no, not okay to close up the nonprofit and go 100% for-profit in that case.

Concisely, in any human matteres: Do what you say you'll do, or, add qualifiers/don't say it.

Take funds from a subset of users who need support services or patch guarantees of some kind, use that to pay people to continue to maintain and improve the product.