Fixed! BSL (to my understanding) is a copy of the license and its a 'hashicorp document' so it had their title on it.
However, someone earlier today put me onto the concept of AGPL licenses so I changed MIRA over to AGPL because it still aligns with my overall intent of protecting my significant effort from someone coming in and Flappy Bird-ing it while still making it freely available to anyone who wants to access, modify, anything it.
We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a closed source business licence. Just with different names.
(As I said above I changed to an AGPL earlier today but I'll speak to my BSL logic)
I liked BSL because the code ~was~ proprietary for a time so someone couldn't duplicate my software I've worked so hard on, paywall it, and put me out of business. I'm a one-man development operation and a strong gust of wind could blow me over. I liked BSL because it naturally decayed into a permissive open source license automatically after a timeout. I'd get a head start but users could still use it and modify it from day one as long as they didn't charge money for it.
Totally fair - but just call it Source Available then.
Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition.
Stating it is open source creates a bait and switch effect with people who understand this definition, get excited, then realize this project is not actually open source.
"Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition."
To be fair, this wouldn't be an issue if Open Source stuck with "Debian Free Software". If you really want to call it a bait and switch, open source did it first.
I'm not seeing the justification for this comment. If anything that license, like the BSL, is aimed at keeping the small guy who worked on X in business so they can profit from their work (always need to put food on the table) while also sharing its innards with the world.
If you’re able to self host and run the tool for any use, it’s effectively a free, extensible, modifiable software solution.
Copyleft licenses are as restrictive as the license DHH put out with Fizzy. I’m an Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing OSS advocate myself, but it’s difficult to argue that it’s worse or equal to a fully closed SaaS solution.
It’s not even remotely close to one of these bullshit “ee” OSS licenses
Open source has an accepted and well understood meaning to developers; when people use the term to mean something other than that, it is 100% of the time for exploitative purposes, and they know they are being disingenuous.
I've used the term for 25+ years to describe my own source-included free software projects, and I'll thank you (and OSI) for not policing my language. No trademark? No standing. Choose other crusades.
Overreaction much? Nobody is policing. Your failure to recognize the meaning of a word - like any other - is just going to harm you due to your own ignorance of its ramifications.
(Shrug) As you will note at the top of the thread, williamstein is policing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the policeman has no badge, no gun, and no uniform, and that their cruiser looks suspiciously like a '92 Crown Victoria with black and white spray paint and a spotlight from Cabela's.
When you combine two words into a fundamentally novel phrase, you are not expressing an opinion, you are contributing to the global (or in this case, anglophone) dictionary.
So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have your own idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?
Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic.
Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
Be that as it may, it's a generic phrase, as evinced by its prior usage in other fields like intelligence and journalism. Lacking a trademark, OSI has zero authority to word-police everyone else. No amount of plugging their ears and chanting lalalala will change the fact that OSI does not own exclusive rights to the phrase "open source." Not with respect to software, not with respect to anything else.
The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.
"Steal" and "child" likewise lack any trademark protection.
So, suppose I accuse you of stealing from children, then when you protest, I
reply that the meaning I give those 2 words might not be the meaning most people have, but that is fine because no one owns the exclusive rights to those 2 words.
I tried making something similar a while ago, and the main problem was that long-term memory makes it easy to move the AI into a bad state where it overfixates on something (context poisoning), or decides to refuse talking to me completely. So in the end, I added a command that wipes out all memory, and ended up using it all the time.
Maybe I was doing it wrong. The question is: how do you prevent the AI from falling into a corrupt state from which it cannot get out?
I use a two-step generation process which both avoids memory explosion in the window and the one turn behind problem.
When a user sends a message I:
generate a vector of the user message ->
pull in semantically similar memories ->
filter and rank them ->
then send an API call with the memories from the last turn that were 'pinned' plus the top 10 memories just surfaced. the first API call's job is to intelligently pick the actual worthwhile memories and 'pin' them till the next turn -> do the main LLM call with an up-to-date and thinned list of memories.
I can't say with confidence that this is ~why~ I don't run into the model getting super flustered and crashing out though I'm familiar with what you're talking about.
I'm playing around with it, and it's very cool! One issue is that fingerprint expansion doesn't always work, e.g. I have a memory "Going to Albania in January for a month-long stay in Tirana" and asking "Do I need a visa for my trip?" didn't turn up anything, using expansion "visa requirements trip destination travel documents..."
What would you think about adding another column that is used for matching that is a superset of the actual memory, basically reusing the fingerprint expansion prompt?
:D I’d also like to thank David Hahn for obsessively (and arguably compulsively) learning about a topic way out of his depth and then manifesting it till the cops took him away.
There is a live hosted instance a miraos.org where you can make an account and chat with MIRA through a web frontend. For now during this phase of people discovering it I'm eating the token costs so its 100% free to access and chat with.
No, I wish. That would be a really cool functionality but to my knowledge it is not possible BUT I could be wrong and would be more than happy to implement that support if someone gives me the information needed to integrate.
If it throws an actual error please let me know by lodging it as an issue in the GitHub repo and I'll modify the code. I'm hanging around the house tonight to fix bugs people uncover.
EDIT: Thanks for the feedback! I was able to pinpoint it to a change I made earlier today to allow simultanious OAI endpoints and the native Claude support. When on a model via a 3rd party provider certain parts of a toolcall were being stripped. Not any more! Pushed an update.
However, someone earlier today put me onto the concept of AGPL licenses so I changed MIRA over to AGPL because it still aligns with my overall intent of protecting my significant effort from someone coming in and Flappy Bird-ing it while still making it freely available to anyone who wants to access, modify, anything it.
DHH also claims he is super open source when in reality he already soul-sent to the big tech bros:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-o-saasy-license-336c5c8f
We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a closed source business licence. Just with different names.
I liked BSL because the code ~was~ proprietary for a time so someone couldn't duplicate my software I've worked so hard on, paywall it, and put me out of business. I'm a one-man development operation and a strong gust of wind could blow me over. I liked BSL because it naturally decayed into a permissive open source license automatically after a timeout. I'd get a head start but users could still use it and modify it from day one as long as they didn't charge money for it.
Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition.
Stating it is open source creates a bait and switch effect with people who understand this definition, get excited, then realize this project is not actually open source.
To be fair, this wouldn't be an issue if Open Source stuck with "Debian Free Software". If you really want to call it a bait and switch, open source did it first.
I'm not seeing the justification for this comment. If anything that license, like the BSL, is aimed at keeping the small guy who worked on X in business so they can profit from their work (always need to put food on the table) while also sharing its innards with the world.
If you’re able to self host and run the tool for any use, it’s effectively a free, extensible, modifiable software solution.
Copyleft licenses are as restrictive as the license DHH put out with Fizzy. I’m an Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing OSS advocate myself, but it’s difficult to argue that it’s worse or equal to a fully closed SaaS solution.
It’s not even remotely close to one of these bullshit “ee” OSS licenses
Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.
So, suppose I accuse you of stealing from children, then when you protest, I reply that the meaning I give those 2 words might not be the meaning most people have, but that is fine because no one owns the exclusive rights to those 2 words.
Maybe I was doing it wrong. The question is: how do you prevent the AI from falling into a corrupt state from which it cannot get out?
When a user sends a message I: generate a vector of the user message -> pull in semantically similar memories -> filter and rank them -> then send an API call with the memories from the last turn that were 'pinned' plus the top 10 memories just surfaced. the first API call's job is to intelligently pick the actual worthwhile memories and 'pin' them till the next turn -> do the main LLM call with an up-to-date and thinned list of memories.
Reading the prompt itself that the analysis model carries is probably easier than listening to my abstract description: https://github.com/taylorsatula/mira-OSS/blob/main/config/pr...
I can't say with confidence that this is ~why~ I don't run into the model getting super flustered and crashing out though I'm familiar with what you're talking about.
What would you think about adding another column that is used for matching that is a superset of the actual memory, basically reusing the fingerprint expansion prompt?
This is easily one of my favorite descriptive details I've ever seen in a README.
EDIT: Thanks for the feedback! I was able to pinpoint it to a change I made earlier today to allow simultanious OAI endpoints and the native Claude support. When on a model via a 3rd party provider certain parts of a toolcall were being stripped. Not any more! Pushed an update.