5 ms·

It has been several years ago that I discovered that despite a similar philosophy behind law-writing and programming, these worlds are very far apart and every

by Iv 6y ago

It has been several years ago that I discovered that despite a similar philosophy behind law-writing and programming, these worlds are very far apart and every year, even when I thought my cynicism was stable, the gap continues to widen. This is from the American Bar Association, it is the opposite of a blog post you would end with IANAL. Yet, we read (at the end) that even professional lawyers are "struggling" with understanding why a given accepted practice is ok given the laws and obligation. And this on no small matter: it is about hiding that the plaintiff died before the trial. And it is not clear whether it is ok or not. I had the "chance" to discuss with lawyers specialized in intellectual property. They did not even understand their subject or the imprecision of law. Every time I try to dig into legal issues surrounding IP I end up with the impression that the difference between a lawyer and a layperson is that the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently. Lawyers are going to help you if you are in a case that has happened tens of times in the past but is going to be clueless in a genuinely new situation. Just as the judge will be. Recently I read about the licensing issues around deep learning models, the definitions of fair use and derivative works. We are used to IETF standards and IEEE specs. Even RFCs are usually pretty precise in how they define things. Laws are crappy when put to that standard. They are just there to provide arguments in a mud-slinging negotiation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
austincheney 6y ago
While the difference in source material can be a wide gap as you described the bigger difference that people commonly point at is ethics. As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. Software doesn’t have that and the entire idea is utterly foreign. As a case in point all lawyers have a general understanding of the word ethic and how it applies to their profession. I have found, as a long time software developer, that most software developers have no idea what that word means and are quick to make faulty assumptions regarding its application. In the software developers’ defense there is not a lot of reason to accurately understand a thing that has never existed in the first place.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. Software doesn’t have that and the entire idea is utterly foreign. This is mostly a function of the industry's age, and is not true of other fields of engineering. I'll be astounded if software isn't folded into Professional Engineering by mid-century.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    That seems highly optimistic. Most software developers are vehemently opposed to the professionalization of their industry.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      Of course they are. Most software developers wouldn't pass a PE exam. Professionalization of software engineering won't be done from the ground up. It will be imposed form the top down.
- anon9001 6y ago
  > As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. That may be true in theory, but in practice most lawyers will protect other lawyers, and their regulatory bodies do very little to discourage bad actors.
throwawaygh 6y ago
> the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently. ...and not even that. I've been told several times by very senior lawyers to ask a senior technical person for advice on thorny software licensing issues. In one case that senior technical person pointed me to a recent decision that basically answered exactly the right question. IME/IMO, lawyers are vastly over-estimated, vastly over-respected, and have far too much political power relative to other stations in this country. We need to reform our legal system from the bottom up so that it serves us instead of the guild.
pabs3 6y ago
If you have any more info about the licensing issues around deep learning models, I'd be very interested to read it. In exchange, here is a link to the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy
- Iv 6y ago
  Well, I'd be happy to have someone to chat with and exchange ideas about it. I am currently digging that rabbit hole that seems to be basically uncharted waters. I would like to find a way to make true open source deep learning models. Debian legal newsletter [1] and lwn[2] have interesting takes on the relevance of GPL. To them, putting a trained model under the GPL implicates that you have to open your dataset too, which are the "sources". That seems somehow consensual but I still think it is debatable and could need clarification. I also dug around the question whether a trained model can actually be copyrightable if the training code and the dataset are free. This is akin to a "compilation" operation that adds no creative input (anyway applying copyright to source code is already a bit of a hack). There is a pretty strong ground to argue that they are similar to "compilation of facts" which come with very little protection. I am now wondering if open source can actually work for deep learning: if trained models are not copyrightable, open source licenses require strong copyright protection to be implemented. Maybe a DL model is not protected enough for that. Finally, I am reassured by recent fair use rulings that a model will probably not be considered a derived work of its dataset and that proprietary data can legally be used to produce an unencumbered model but the legal uncertainty still exists. If you are interested in helping me trying to figure out how to protect crucial models so that the first AGI will be beneficial to all and open sourced, I'd be very happy to have someone poke holes into my ideas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00028.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00028.html [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/760142/ https://lwn.net/Articles/760142/
  - pabs3 6y ago
    The Debian ML policy linked above goes a fair way to making truly open source deep learning models. The biggest problem with the policy is they do not address the economic disparity that means only folks with a lot of money can train a model even if they had all the training software, drivers and source data under a free license etc. Perhaps Debian can get enough donated compute time that we can solve this though. The products of compilation seem to be copyrightable, otherwise software piracy wouldn't be prosecutable. Perhaps the same would apply to trained models. Do you have a link to those fair use rulings? Also note that fair use is an American concept and doesn't apply in many countries, some of which have similar but more restricted concepts. Also, I wouldn't consider a model produced under your example as a free model, that would be more of a ToxicCandy model in the Debian ML Policy parlance.
fortran2003 6y ago
> the impression that the difference between a lawyer and a layperson is that the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently. In fact, to me that sounds like exactly what you would expect in a common law system.
noisy_boy 6y ago
> And this on no small matter: it is about hiding that the plaintiff died before the trial. And it is not clear whether it is ok or not. I think the scenario in question had the complaining witness dying. Is a complaining witness same as plaintiff? I would think the plaintiff in this scenario is the state. Genuine doubt as I'm not a lawyer.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  They the same thing with possible procedural differences (what they get called depending on the type of case) in some places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff Legally speaking they are different, but to the layperson they mean the same thing (both are the ones on the opposite side of the defendant).

by Iv 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

austincheney 6y ago

While the difference in source material can be a wide gap as you described the bigger difference that people commonly point at is ethics. As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. Software doesn’t have that and the entire idea is utterly foreign. As a case in point all lawyers have a general understanding of the word ethic and how it applies to their profession. I have found, as a long time software developer, that most software developers have no idea what that word means and are quick to make faulty assumptions regarding its application. In the software developers’ defense there is not a lot of reason to accurately understand a thing that has never existed in the first place.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. Software doesn’t have that and the entire idea is utterly foreign. This is mostly a function of the industry's age, and is not true of other fields of engineering. I'll be astounded if software isn't folded into Professional Engineering by mid-century.
- austincheney 6y ago
  That seems highly optimistic. Most software developers are vehemently opposed to the professionalization of their industry.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Of course they are. Most software developers wouldn't pass a PE exam. Professionalization of software engineering won't be done from the ground up. It will be imposed form the top down.
anon9001 6y ago
> As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. That may be true in theory, but in practice most lawyers will protect other lawyers, and their regulatory bodies do very little to discourage bad actors.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently. ...and not even that. I've been told several times by very senior lawyers to ask a senior technical person for advice on thorny software licensing issues. In one case that senior technical person pointed me to a recent decision that basically answered exactly the right question. IME/IMO, lawyers are vastly over-estimated, vastly over-respected, and have far too much political power relative to other stations in this country. We need to reform our legal system from the bottom up so that it serves us instead of the guild.

pabs3 6y ago

If you have any more info about the licensing issues around deep learning models, I'd be very interested to read it. In exchange, here is a link to the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy

Iv 6y ago
Well, I'd be happy to have someone to chat with and exchange ideas about it. I am currently digging that rabbit hole that seems to be basically uncharted waters. I would like to find a way to make true open source deep learning models. Debian legal newsletter [1] and lwn[2] have interesting takes on the relevance of GPL. To them, putting a trained model under the GPL implicates that you have to open your dataset too, which are the "sources". That seems somehow consensual but I still think it is debatable and could need clarification. I also dug around the question whether a trained model can actually be copyrightable if the training code and the dataset are free. This is akin to a "compilation" operation that adds no creative input (anyway applying copyright to source code is already a bit of a hack). There is a pretty strong ground to argue that they are similar to "compilation of facts" which come with very little protection. I am now wondering if open source can actually work for deep learning: if trained models are not copyrightable, open source licenses require strong copyright protection to be implemented. Maybe a DL model is not protected enough for that. Finally, I am reassured by recent fair use rulings that a model will probably not be considered a derived work of its dataset and that proprietary data can legally be used to produce an unencumbered model but the legal uncertainty still exists. If you are interested in helping me trying to figure out how to protect crucial models so that the first AGI will be beneficial to all and open sourced, I'd be very happy to have someone poke holes into my ideas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00028.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00028.html [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/760142/ https://lwn.net/Articles/760142/
- pabs3 6y ago
  The Debian ML policy linked above goes a fair way to making truly open source deep learning models. The biggest problem with the policy is they do not address the economic disparity that means only folks with a lot of money can train a model even if they had all the training software, drivers and source data under a free license etc. Perhaps Debian can get enough donated compute time that we can solve this though. The products of compilation seem to be copyrightable, otherwise software piracy wouldn't be prosecutable. Perhaps the same would apply to trained models. Do you have a link to those fair use rulings? Also note that fair use is an American concept and doesn't apply in many countries, some of which have similar but more restricted concepts. Also, I wouldn't consider a model produced under your example as a free model, that would be more of a ToxicCandy model in the Debian ML Policy parlance.

fortran2003 6y ago

> the impression that the difference between a lawyer and a layperson is that the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently. In fact, to me that sounds like exactly what you would expect in a common law system.

noisy_boy 6y ago

> And this on no small matter: it is about hiding that the plaintiff died before the trial. And it is not clear whether it is ok or not. I think the scenario in question had the complaining witness dying. Is a complaining witness same as plaintiff? I would think the plaintiff in this scenario is the state. Genuine doubt as I'm not a lawyer.

parsimo2010 6y ago
They the same thing with possible procedural differences (what they get called depending on the type of case) in some places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff Legally speaking they are different, but to the layperson they mean the same thing (both are the ones on the opposite side of the defendant).