4 ms·

New restriction in their License suggests the software can't be modified. "2. All persons obtaining a copy or substantial portion of the Software, a modified v

New restriction in their License suggests the software can't be modified. "2. All persons obtaining a copy or substantial portion of the Software, a modified version of the Software (or substantial portion thereof), or a derivative work based upon this Software (or substantial portion thereof) must not delete, remove, disable, diminish, or circumvent any inference filters or inference filter mechanisms in the Software, or any portion of the Software that implements any such filters or filter mechanisms."

thewataccount 3y ago
> New restriction in their License suggests the software can't be modified. It can be modified. That just says it can't be modified to bypass their filters.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
GaggiX 3y ago
>New restriction in their License suggests the software can't be modified. To remove filters. "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"
oh_sigh 3y ago
You can't remove the filters per the license, but the weights will be available soon and so anyone can just reimplement this code using the weights
- Jackson__ 3y ago
  There is a similar license clause for the weights[0] as well, so I'm not sure this would apply unless you write the code and train your model from scratch. [0] https://github.com/deep-floyd/IF/blob/main/LICENSE-MODEL#L54 https://github.com/deep-floyd/IF/blob/main/LICENSE-MODEL#L54
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Or unless, as seems to be fairly widely expected but untested, model weights are not actually copyrightable, so model licenses are superfluous.
- ronsor 3y ago
  That's already been done: https://github.com/lucidrains/imagen-pytorch https://github.com/lucidrains/imagen-pytorch
RobotToaster 3y ago
Then by definition it isn't open source, violating points 3, 4, and 6 of the open source definition. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- yellowapple 3y ago
  Yep. It's getting really exhausting seeing projects falsely advertising themselves as "open source". Either be FOSS or don't be; don't pretend to be while using some nonsense like the BSL or whatever adhocery is in play here.
  - Mizza 3y ago
    In the README they even call it "Modified MIT", the modification being where they turned it from a very permissive license into a fully proprietary one. Very cool model though.
    - orra 3y ago
      Well, the Apache Software Foundation were rightly getting annoyed at 'modified Apache' licences...
  - aledalgrande 3y ago
    I bet it's a new benchmark for the labs to get funding
kmeisthax 3y ago
As someone who's largely "OK" with morality clauses in otherwise liberal AI licenses, I think we should start calling these "weights-available" models to distinguish from capital-F Free Software[1] ones. I'm starting to get irritated by all these 'non-commercial' licensed models, though, because there is no such thing as a non-commercial license. In copyright law, merely having the work in question is considered a commercial benefit. So you need to specify every single act you think is 'non-commercial', and users of the license have to read and understand that. Even Creative Commons' NC clause only specifies one; they say that filesharing is not commercial. So it's just a fancy covenant not to sue BitTorrent users. And then there's LLaMA, whose model weights were only ever shared privately with other researchers. Everyone using LLaMA publicly is likely pirating it. Actual weights-available or Free models already exist, such as BLOOM, Dolly, StableLM[0], Pythia, GPT-J, GPT-NeoX, and CerebrasGPT. [0] Untuned only; the instruction-tuned models are frustratingly CC-BY-NC-SA because apparently nobody made an open dataset for instruction tuning. [1] Insamuch as an AI model trained on copyrighted data can even be considered Free.

thewataccount 3y ago

> New restriction in their License suggests the software can't be modified. It can be modified. That just says it can't be modified to bypass their filters.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

GaggiX 3y ago

>New restriction in their License suggests the software can't be modified. To remove filters. "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"

oh_sigh 3y ago

You can't remove the filters per the license, but the weights will be available soon and so anyone can just reimplement this code using the weights

Jackson__ 3y ago
There is a similar license clause for the weights[0] as well, so I'm not sure this would apply unless you write the code and train your model from scratch. [0] https://github.com/deep-floyd/IF/blob/main/LICENSE-MODEL#L54 https://github.com/deep-floyd/IF/blob/main/LICENSE-MODEL#L54
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Or unless, as seems to be fairly widely expected but untested, model weights are not actually copyrightable, so model licenses are superfluous.
ronsor 3y ago
That's already been done: https://github.com/lucidrains/imagen-pytorch https://github.com/lucidrains/imagen-pytorch

RobotToaster 3y ago

Then by definition it isn't open source, violating points 3, 4, and 6 of the open source definition. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

yellowapple 3y ago
Yep. It's getting really exhausting seeing projects falsely advertising themselves as "open source". Either be FOSS or don't be; don't pretend to be while using some nonsense like the BSL or whatever adhocery is in play here.
- Mizza 3y ago
  In the README they even call it "Modified MIT", the modification being where they turned it from a very permissive license into a fully proprietary one. Very cool model though.
  - orra 3y ago
    Well, the Apache Software Foundation were rightly getting annoyed at 'modified Apache' licences...
- aledalgrande 3y ago
  I bet it's a new benchmark for the labs to get funding

kmeisthax 3y ago

As someone who's largely "OK" with morality clauses in otherwise liberal AI licenses, I think we should start calling these "weights-available" models to distinguish from capital-F Free Software[1] ones. I'm starting to get irritated by all these 'non-commercial' licensed models, though, because there is no such thing as a non-commercial license. In copyright law, merely having the work in question is considered a commercial benefit. So you need to specify every single act you think is 'non-commercial', and users of the license have to read and understand that. Even Creative Commons' NC clause only specifies one; they say that filesharing is not commercial. So it's just a fancy covenant not to sue BitTorrent users. And then there's LLaMA, whose model weights were only ever shared privately with other researchers. Everyone using LLaMA publicly is likely pirating it. Actual weights-available or Free models already exist, such as BLOOM, Dolly, StableLM[0], Pythia, GPT-J, GPT-NeoX, and CerebrasGPT. [0] Untuned only; the instruction-tuned models are frustratingly CC-BY-NC-SA because apparently nobody made an open dataset for instruction tuning. [1] Insamuch as an AI model trained on copyrighted data can even be considered Free.