3 ms·

> I'm sorry, but what do you expect? Literally all code is "a bunch of numbers" when you get down to it. Realistically we're just talking about if the code/data

> I'm sorry, but what do you expect? Literally all code is "a bunch of numbers" when you get down to it. Realistically we're just talking about if the code/data is 1) able to be read through common tools and common formats and 2) can we edit, explore, and investigate it. The answer to both these questions is yes. Any parametric mathematical model is defined by its weights as well as its computational graph. They certainly provide both of these. I expect that if you call a release "open source", it's, you know, source. That their engineers used to build the release. What Mistral's engineers edit and collate as their day job. > The "recipe" is missing, yes, but this is very different from what you're saying. The "recipe" is what we generally call source. > So if there's miscommunication then let's communicate better instead of getting upset at one another. Who's getting upset here? I'm simply calling for not diluting a term. A free, permissive, binary release is great. It's just not open source. > Because 14G of a bunch of algorithmically constructed numbers and a few text tiles is definitely all you need to use, edit, and/or modify the work. Just like my Windows install ISO from when they were giving windows licenses away from free.

godelski 3y ago
> The "recipe" is what we generally call source. Not really. At least not in normal software. The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need. > Just like my Windows install ISO from when they were giving windows licenses away from free. I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison.
- monocasa 3y ago
  > Not really. At least not in normal software. Yes, in normal software, the 'recipe' used to create the build artifacts is the source. > The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need. A lot of excuses about why it's not useful to a lot of people and that you don't actually need it to use it in production is exactly the argument made for why not open sourcing is ok. That doesn't mean this is a source release, open or otherwise. > I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison. Even if the Windows binary iso was released with an Apache license, it wouldn't be open source since no actual source was released. That's the point of that line of argument.
- kanwisher 3y ago
  Like if someone only gave me binaries of Apache and said it's open source, you wouldn't agree with them. Cause you can't practically modify it. Open source of a model would be exact same, you would need to be able to do the same build process. A model is literally the same as an EXE or Elf Binary, its a "probabilistic" program, but its still a program

godelski 3y ago

> The "recipe" is what we generally call source. Not really. At least not in normal software. The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need. > Just like my Windows install ISO from when they were giving windows licenses away from free. I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison.

monocasa 3y ago
> Not really. At least not in normal software. Yes, in normal software, the 'recipe' used to create the build artifacts is the source. > The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need. A lot of excuses about why it's not useful to a lot of people and that you don't actually need it to use it in production is exactly the argument made for why not open sourcing is ok. That doesn't mean this is a source release, open or otherwise. > I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison. Even if the Windows binary iso was released with an Apache license, it wouldn't be open source since no actual source was released. That's the point of that line of argument.
kanwisher 3y ago
Like if someone only gave me binaries of Apache and said it's open source, you wouldn't agree with them. Cause you can't practically modify it. Open source of a model would be exact same, you would need to be able to do the same build process. A model is literally the same as an EXE or Elf Binary, its a "probabilistic" program, but its still a program