4 ms·

It’s not about what views are possible. It’s about honesty and humility which are both things the modern world doesn’t seem to care about. The more narrow defin

It’s not about what views are possible. It’s about honesty and humility which are both things the modern world doesn’t seem to care about. The more narrow definition of oss (rms/gnu) is un ambiguous as is the meaning of source available. People choosing to use oss with the ambiguous meaning are liable for their ambiguity, and therefore worthy of op’s criticism.

two_in_one 3y ago
Terms wars. I'm glad we don't have to say 'GNU Linux' anymore.
- jlokier 3y ago
  True. We call it 'Android' now, or 'ChromeOS'. Some argue we should acknowledge the important historical contribution made by the Linux project to the most widely used operating system in the world, but others argue that Linux is only a small component in a larger system, especially when they count lines of code, so it does not merit mention. /s (Above is a paraphrase of the now old argument why GNU did or did not merit mention in names of Linux-based operating systems. Now we have reached the point where Linux doesn't get a mention either).
godelski 3y ago
Stallman puts it well >> Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was a variant of that of free software. >> Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. > It’s about honesty and humility Good faith arguments recognize this obvious meaning. I would not buy it if anyone claimed that any other definition was an obvious conclusion from the term "Open Source Software." But as you're talking about the modern world, I find that this kind of terminology and reaction is quite common. I'm not sure why, but it we see it in a lot of political sayings and these just lead to arguments. You're right, we need to have a little honest and humility and recognize that if you need a paragraph to explain a 2-5 word slogan that it isn't an obvious interpretation. (I've advocated for abandoning some terms in favor of others and the pushback is not on proposed alternative terminology but rather someone giving me a lecture on the original phrasing and how I don't understand it. That's unproductive, as we see similar events in other comments below).
- getcrunk 3y ago
  Touche, I’m unmoved but you make good points. Notwithstanding your point about the “obvious” meaning, I think it’s clear who is doing what with their word choices.
- thrtythreeforty 3y ago
  I see your point. And I understand that the term is understood differently by different people. But there is a substantial fraction of people (myself included) who understands it the way OSI defines it. My criticism is not that Facebook chooses to release the software under any particular terms (they are well within their rights not to release it at all). But the ambiguity of the term remains, and my belief is that Facebook is well aware of the ambiguity and nevertheless chooses to use it in bad faith, and that is what frustrates me. A less-ambiguous press release might instead say "source released under a non-commercial research license" or more succinctly "model code available for researchers," which sounds just fine.
  - godelski 3y ago
    All I'm trying to get is people to change their phrasing to something like > Many may not be aware, because of the naming, but OSS is actually defined as having no commerce restrictions <link to OSD and DoD definitions>. Facebook should clarify that this is "source available". I'm glad the source is available, but this is extremely frustrating as we've had this discussion several times and I believe that Facebook should know better by now. I think such a phrasing could have led to better outcomes. For example, if I saw that -- instead of a bunch of comments about OSS -- I would have commented about how there is a lack of a training script and that this makes the work difficult to reproduce. While the training looks standard sometimes there are subtle differences that make this difficult. Though I'll admit that Facebook has a decent track record for reproduction within my own experience (MSR is the worst and Google is okay but uses proprietary datasets[0]). > or more succinctly "model code available for researchers," Just to be clear, the checkpoint is also available. But I should also mention that this is only the state dict and does not have other information, as is common practice. [0] Google needs to be not allowed to use this dataset in conference publications (at least in review phase). Not only does it make the work not reproducible but it breaks double blind reviewing, thus violating conference guidelines. Any paper which mentions JFT is automatically known as a Google work and biases the reviewer. I am ashamed that both reviewers and ACs have not flagged these works.

two_in_one 3y ago

Terms wars. I'm glad we don't have to say 'GNU Linux' anymore.

jlokier 3y ago
True. We call it 'Android' now, or 'ChromeOS'. Some argue we should acknowledge the important historical contribution made by the Linux project to the most widely used operating system in the world, but others argue that Linux is only a small component in a larger system, especially when they count lines of code, so it does not merit mention. /s (Above is a paraphrase of the now old argument why GNU did or did not merit mention in names of Linux-based operating systems. Now we have reached the point where Linux doesn't get a mention either).

godelski 3y ago

Stallman puts it well >> Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was a variant of that of free software. >> Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. > It’s about honesty and humility Good faith arguments recognize this obvious meaning. I would not buy it if anyone claimed that any other definition was an obvious conclusion from the term "Open Source Software." But as you're talking about the modern world, I find that this kind of terminology and reaction is quite common. I'm not sure why, but it we see it in a lot of political sayings and these just lead to arguments. You're right, we need to have a little honest and humility and recognize that if you need a paragraph to explain a 2-5 word slogan that it isn't an obvious interpretation. (I've advocated for abandoning some terms in favor of others and the pushback is not on proposed alternative terminology but rather someone giving me a lecture on the original phrasing and how I don't understand it. That's unproductive, as we see similar events in other comments below).

getcrunk 3y ago
Touche, I’m unmoved but you make good points. Notwithstanding your point about the “obvious” meaning, I think it’s clear who is doing what with their word choices.
thrtythreeforty 3y ago
I see your point. And I understand that the term is understood differently by different people. But there is a substantial fraction of people (myself included) who understands it the way OSI defines it. My criticism is not that Facebook chooses to release the software under any particular terms (they are well within their rights not to release it at all). But the ambiguity of the term remains, and my belief is that Facebook is well aware of the ambiguity and nevertheless chooses to use it in bad faith, and that is what frustrates me. A less-ambiguous press release might instead say "source released under a non-commercial research license" or more succinctly "model code available for researchers," which sounds just fine.
- godelski 3y ago
  All I'm trying to get is people to change their phrasing to something like > Many may not be aware, because of the naming, but OSS is actually defined as having no commerce restrictions <link to OSD and DoD definitions>. Facebook should clarify that this is "source available". I'm glad the source is available, but this is extremely frustrating as we've had this discussion several times and I believe that Facebook should know better by now. I think such a phrasing could have led to better outcomes. For example, if I saw that -- instead of a bunch of comments about OSS -- I would have commented about how there is a lack of a training script and that this makes the work difficult to reproduce. While the training looks standard sometimes there are subtle differences that make this difficult. Though I'll admit that Facebook has a decent track record for reproduction within my own experience (MSR is the worst and Google is okay but uses proprietary datasets[0]). > or more succinctly "model code available for researchers," Just to be clear, the checkpoint is also available. But I should also mention that this is only the state dict and does not have other information, as is common practice. [0] Google needs to be not allowed to use this dataset in conference publications (at least in review phase). Not only does it make the work not reproducible but it breaks double blind reviewing, thus violating conference guidelines. Any paper which mentions JFT is automatically known as a Google work and biases the reviewer. I am ashamed that both reviewers and ACs have not flagged these works.