“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"
I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.
"The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide funding for research, development and distribution of technology related to artificial intelligence. The resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable."
Based on this, it would be extremely hard to show that they are doing something very different from what they said they were going to do, namely, fund the research and development of AI technology. They state that the technology developed will benefit the public, not that it will belong to the public, except "when applicable."
It's not illegal for a non-profit to have a for-profit subsidiary earning income; many non-profits earn a substantial portion of their annual revenue from for-profit activities. The for-profit subsidiary/activity is subject to income tax. That income then goes to the non-profit parent can be used to fund the non-profit mission...which it appears they are. It would only be a private benefit issue if the directors or employees of the non-profit were to receive an "excess benefit" from the non-profit (generally, meaning salary and benefits or other remuneration in excess of what is appropriate based on the market).
Does it become applicable to open source when "The resulting technology will benefit the public"?
That seems the clearest read.
If so, OpenAI would have to argue that open sourcing their models wouldn't benefit the public, which... seems difficult.
They'd essentially have to argue that the public paying OpenAI to use an OpenAI-controlled model is more beneficial.
Or does "when applicable" mean something else? And if so, what? There aren't any other sentences around that indicate what else. And it's hard to argue that their models technically can't be open sourced, given other open source models.