5 ms·

> The code in this repository is open-source under the Apache-2.0 license. The InternLM weights are fully open for academic research and also allow commercial u

> The code in this repository is open-source under the Apache-2.0 license. The InternLM weights are fully open for academic research and also allow commercial use with written permission from the official team. For inquiries about commercial licenses and collaborations, please contact internlm@pjlab.org.cn. This makes me much less excited about this model.

hmottestad 3y ago
Is that even valid? This seems to be the only place where they’ve made this exemption, it’s not written in the license. Even the weights on hugging face are licensed under apache 2.0. Doesn’t apache 2.0 allow for fairly unrestricted commercial use? Isn’t that the whole point of using that license?
- exizt88 3y ago
  The model code is Apache 2.0, the weights are proprietary.
  - huggingmouth 3y ago
    That's not their huggingface repo says: https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm-7b https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm-7b The current release on huggingface is available under plain apache 2.0
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - Tostino 3y ago
    If weights are even protected by copyright at all...which would be a departure from current law.
ohgodplsno 3y ago
Less excited that you can't freely take work from academics to resell it in a shitty SaaS company ?
- speedgoose 3y ago
  In Europe we call that a success story.
- exizt88 3y ago
  You do understand that academics are usually funded by taxpayers? Obviously, not by me, as I don't pay taxes in China, but it's not like academics are doing this work for free. Society pays them for their work so that it can benefit from its results.
  - LightBug1 3y ago
    "Society" quiet chuckle
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Is there any breakdown of private vs government funding for general purpose academic research. I was under the impression that most of the funds in field like ML come from fees from undergrads and donations by alumnus, or by private companies.
    - WoodenChair 3y ago
      > I was under the impression that most of the funds in field like ML come from fees from undergrads and donations by alumnus, or by private companies. In the United States, tuition makes up less than 35% of most universities' revenue.[0] Donations are significant, but if we were to just look at research funding, it would mostly be government grants. "The federal government is by far the largest funder of academic R&D..." [1] [0] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud [1] https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/academic-r-d-in-the-united-states https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/academic-r-d-in-the-unit...
  - 3y ago
version_five 3y ago
Agreed, this basically moves it to the "don't bother" pile. There are already the llama variants with non-commercial licenses, and open-llama as an open source model (I'm thinking in the 7B space specifically). This would have to be pretty friggin compelling to spend any time on.
- echelon 3y ago
  Do they even have the legal justification of saying how you can or cannot use the weights? It could be ruled that weights are uncopyrightable. I think we as a community should advocate for that. If you train on data you don't own, the results (weights, unmodified outputs) should be public domain. When people create novel works on top (SaaS tools, music, films), then those human combinations should hold copyright. Not the model weights. If you can prove you own all of the inputs into training, then perhaps it's another story. But that could also be dangerous and allow for data cartels to own the future.

hmottestad 3y ago

Is that even valid? This seems to be the only place where they’ve made this exemption, it’s not written in the license. Even the weights on hugging face are licensed under apache 2.0. Doesn’t apache 2.0 allow for fairly unrestricted commercial use? Isn’t that the whole point of using that license?

exizt88 3y ago
The model code is Apache 2.0, the weights are proprietary.
- huggingmouth 3y ago
  That's not their huggingface repo says: https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm-7b https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm-7b The current release on huggingface is available under plain apache 2.0
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Tostino 3y ago
  If weights are even protected by copyright at all...which would be a departure from current law.

ohgodplsno 3y ago

Less excited that you can't freely take work from academics to resell it in a shitty SaaS company ?

speedgoose 3y ago
In Europe we call that a success story.
exizt88 3y ago
You do understand that academics are usually funded by taxpayers? Obviously, not by me, as I don't pay taxes in China, but it's not like academics are doing this work for free. Society pays them for their work so that it can benefit from its results.
- LightBug1 3y ago
  "Society" quiet chuckle
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Is there any breakdown of private vs government funding for general purpose academic research. I was under the impression that most of the funds in field like ML come from fees from undergrads and donations by alumnus, or by private companies.
  - WoodenChair 3y ago
    > I was under the impression that most of the funds in field like ML come from fees from undergrads and donations by alumnus, or by private companies. In the United States, tuition makes up less than 35% of most universities' revenue.[0] Donations are significant, but if we were to just look at research funding, it would mostly be government grants. "The federal government is by far the largest funder of academic R&D..." [1] [0] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud [1] https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/academic-r-d-in-the-united-states https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/academic-r-d-in-the-unit...
- 3y ago

version_five 3y ago

Agreed, this basically moves it to the "don't bother" pile. There are already the llama variants with non-commercial licenses, and open-llama as an open source model (I'm thinking in the 7B space specifically). This would have to be pretty friggin compelling to spend any time on.

echelon 3y ago
Do they even have the legal justification of saying how you can or cannot use the weights? It could be ruled that weights are uncopyrightable. I think we as a community should advocate for that. If you train on data you don't own, the results (weights, unmodified outputs) should be public domain. When people create novel works on top (SaaS tools, music, films), then those human combinations should hold copyright. Not the model weights. If you can prove you own all of the inputs into training, then perhaps it's another story. But that could also be dangerous and allow for data cartels to own the future.