Why is this still titled "Open" SLM Leaderboard under a proprietary license?
Hey AxiomicLabs,
Looking through the recent commit history, this space was relicensed under the custom "Axiomic Labs Restricted License."
Reading through the new terms:
- You cannot copy or reproduce the source code.
- You cannot redistribute, republish, or mirror the project.
- You cannot create or distribute derivative works.
- You cannot use the source code in another product or service.
- You cannot copy metrics for competitor leaderboards.
Under the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Open Source Definition, open source explicitly requires free redistribution (Criterion 1) and the right to create derivative works (Criterion 3).
Furthermore, prohibiting the copying of metrics specifically for "competitor leaderboards" directly violates OSD Criterion 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups) and Criterion 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), which explicitly forbid licensing restrictions aimed at specific individuals, organizations, or competing entities.
This license is explicitly closed-source and proprietary. Keeping "Open" in the title while barring forks, redistribution, and competitive benchmarking is textbook open-washing.
Are you planning to rename the project to accurately reflect that it is a closed, proprietary benchmark, or return to an actual OSI-approved open-source license like Apache 2.0 or MIT?
Open SLM leaderboard means a leaderboard for opensource SLMs, I think.
I'm not completely sure, ask DatDanBoi.
Also, even building off this as a base is still against license, I'd remove it and do benchmarks on your own data.
If you don't even know what your own project name means, it explains why you still don't understand that Apache 2.0 is legally irrevocable.
Well, the version that he forked was still under the Apache 2.0, legally speaking. He can't issue a copyright takedown for the original leaderboard, only if he forked this new one.
Well, the version that he forked was still under the Apache 2.0, legally speaking. He can't issue a copyright takedown for the original leaderboard, only if he forked this new one.
Exactly! Spot on. Appreciate you stepping in with actual legal clarity, that is the entire foundation of how open source licensing works.
I'm starting to question the SLM community's response to this fork. Originally, I believed you were in violation of the Apache 2.0, but it is now clear that that was not the case.
You exercised your rights granted via the Apache 2.0, and we must respect that.
I still thank Dan for everything he has done in support of OpenCerebral, but something about this felt rash. I think the two leaderboards can co-exist peacefully.
@MultivexAI Take off SupraLabs models from there, these models are mine and I don't want them there.
I'm starting to question the SLM community's response to this fork. Originally, I believed you were in violation of the Apache 2.0, but it is now clear that that was not the case.
You exercised your rights granted via the Apache 2.0, and we must respect that.
I still thank Dan for everything he has done in support of OpenCerebral, but something about this felt rash. I think the two leaderboards can co-exist peacefully.
It originally violated Apache 2.0. It is fixed but people still want off due to the drama.
I suppose. I just think the whole thing kinda got blown out of proportion. I think all of our work should be shared for a brighter tomorrow. But, I guess I see what you mean.
Hey AxiomicLabs,
Looking through the recent commit history, this space was relicensed under the custom "Axiomic Labs Restricted License."
Reading through the new terms:
- You cannot copy or reproduce the source code.
- You cannot redistribute, republish, or mirror the project.
- You cannot create or distribute derivative works.
- You cannot use the source code in another product or service.
- You cannot copy metrics for competitor leaderboards.
Under the Open Source Initiative (OSI) Open Source Definition, open source explicitly requires free redistribution (Criterion 1) and the right to create derivative works (Criterion 3).
Furthermore, prohibiting the copying of metrics specifically for "competitor leaderboards" directly violates OSD Criterion 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups) and Criterion 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), which explicitly forbid licensing restrictions aimed at specific individuals, organizations, or competing entities.
This license is explicitly closed-source and proprietary. Keeping "Open" in the title while barring forks, redistribution, and competitive benchmarking is textbook open-washing.
Are you planning to rename the project to accurately reflect that it is a closed, proprietary benchmark, or return to an actual OSI-approved open-source license like Apache 2.0 or MIT?
Hi Multivex,
Glad you asked! It is called the open SLM leaderboard because it is open for submissions, suggestions, and removals of open source models (as said by ender). This remains true now and forever.
The fact that you are upset about this only shows that you intended to copy the relicensed metrics haha.
By that definition, the Apple App Store is "open source." And claiming you can "relicense" factual benchmark numbers proves you still don't understand copyright law. Best of luck with your closed space!
I very well can relicense new benchmark scores, that are evaluated by me using my software haha enjoy your stolen space, temtped to change the license to "anyone but multivex or associates"