5 ms·

The claim is slightly misleading since it seems that they are going after repos that distribute Llama weights without going through the official channels. Howe

The claim is slightly misleading since it seems that they are going after repos that distribute Llama weights without going through the official channels. However, that could be an unfortunate corrolary of the fact that in the US if you do not enforce your IP you give up your rights over it. Overall, giant lose-lose, and I wish there was a truly open source model to build on top of.

orra 4y ago
> that could be an unfortunate corrolary of the fact that in the US if you do not enforce your IP you give up your rights over it. That's the case with trademarks but I have never heard of it being the case with copyright.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  Copyright (in the US, at least) is a “natural” right. It exists, as soon as the work exists, and registration is not required. It needs to be explicitly transferred and/or assigned. There is no need to "defend" it. There have been a lot of challenges, based on “derivative copies,” but these generally seem to be from where someone uses a photo done by someone else, in their own creative work (like the Obama "Change" poster). Some of these challenges succeed, some do not. I would assume someone extending these weights might be considered a “derivative.” Copyright law is odd, and there’s a lot of “fuzziness,” especially with creative works. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of applying copyright to compiled and opaque binaries, but I guess I’m in the minority.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    >I’ve always been a bit skeptical of applying copyright to compiled and opaque binaries, but I guess I’m in the minority. You're not in the minority - copyright requiring human authorship and creativity is standing law. A compiled binary cannot be copyrighted on it's own[0]; the copyright flows from the source to the binaries via derivative works. We just don't normally think about this because until very recently all binaries were derivatives of copyrightable human creative expression. Applying a mechanical process to a creative work doesn't make it non-creative, after all. [0] Hand-assembled binaries would be considered "source code" in this case.
ealexhudson 4y ago
You only lose rights with respect to trademarks. Copyrights do not need to be consistently enforced in order to be enforceable (although if you're not consistent you'll likely have a tough time arguing significant damages)
- lupire 4y ago
  The real problem, which plagues open source, is the US is extremely financialized, so courts are loathe to grant actual damages for cultural loss due to free stuff getting pirated. There are still statutory damages, though.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

orra 4y ago

> that could be an unfortunate corrolary of the fact that in the US if you do not enforce your IP you give up your rights over it. That's the case with trademarks but I have never heard of it being the case with copyright.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
Copyright (in the US, at least) is a “natural” right. It exists, as soon as the work exists, and registration is not required. It needs to be explicitly transferred and/or assigned. There is no need to "defend" it. There have been a lot of challenges, based on “derivative copies,” but these generally seem to be from where someone uses a photo done by someone else, in their own creative work (like the Obama "Change" poster). Some of these challenges succeed, some do not. I would assume someone extending these weights might be considered a “derivative.” Copyright law is odd, and there’s a lot of “fuzziness,” especially with creative works. I’ve always been a bit skeptical of applying copyright to compiled and opaque binaries, but I guess I’m in the minority.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  >I’ve always been a bit skeptical of applying copyright to compiled and opaque binaries, but I guess I’m in the minority. You're not in the minority - copyright requiring human authorship and creativity is standing law. A compiled binary cannot be copyrighted on it's own[0]; the copyright flows from the source to the binaries via derivative works. We just don't normally think about this because until very recently all binaries were derivatives of copyrightable human creative expression. Applying a mechanical process to a creative work doesn't make it non-creative, after all. [0] Hand-assembled binaries would be considered "source code" in this case.

ealexhudson 4y ago

You only lose rights with respect to trademarks. Copyrights do not need to be consistently enforced in order to be enforceable (although if you're not consistent you'll likely have a tough time arguing significant damages)

lupire 4y ago
The real problem, which plagues open source, is the US is extremely financialized, so courts are loathe to grant actual damages for cultural loss due to free stuff getting pirated. There are still statutory damages, though.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]