4 ms·

Looks like the Vicuna repo is Apache 2.0 also[1]. What's the interpretation of copyright law that would prevent the code being Apache 2.0 based on the source o

Looks like the Vicuna repo is Apache 2.0 also[1]. What's the interpretation of copyright law that would prevent the code being Apache 2.0 based on the source of the fine-tuning dataset? [1] https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat

whimsicalism 3y ago
Not quite: fastchat is the inference code which is Apache 2.0 but distinct from the model artifact. If you look at the model [0] it is licensed as non-commercial. But why? Well for one, Vicuna is a Llama finetune, which already excludes it from being Apache 2.0. It's also finetuned on OAI data which is... questionable in terms of license (don't think you can really legally license a model trained on OAI output as Apache 2.0 - although OAI doesn't really play by its own rules so who knows) [0]: https://huggingface.co/lmsys/vicuna-13b-v1.3 https://huggingface.co/lmsys/vicuna-13b-v1.3
- yeldarb 3y ago
  Which part of copyright law are model weights governed by? (Or, if not by copyright law, what's the legal basis that would let you choose a "license" for model weights?)
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Weights may or may not be subject to copyright law. Are they a mere aggregation of facts -- some uncopyrightable, and some from other sources--, or is there a creative component to them? https://libraries.emory.edu/research/copyright/copyright-data https://libraries.emory.edu/research/copyright/copyright-dat...
  - realusername 3y ago
    There's no basis for models to be copyrightable that I can think of, licences on models are legal fictions for now until there's a new addition into copyright laws.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      It has not yet been challenged, so we don’t really know yet. Personally I will be surprised if weights aren’t considered to be licensable - courts are a lot more practical than one might expect.

4 ms·

Looks like the Vicuna repo is Apache 2.0 also[1]. What's the interpretation of copyright law that would prevent the code being Apache 2.0 based on the source o

by yeldarb 3y ago

whimsicalism 3y ago
Not quite: fastchat is the inference code which is Apache 2.0 but distinct from the model artifact. If you look at the model [0] it is licensed as non-commercial. But why? Well for one, Vicuna is a Llama finetune, which already excludes it from being Apache 2.0. It's also finetuned on OAI data which is... questionable in terms of license (don't think you can really legally license a model trained on OAI output as Apache 2.0 - although OAI doesn't really play by its own rules so who knows) [0]: https://huggingface.co/lmsys/vicuna-13b-v1.3 https://huggingface.co/lmsys/vicuna-13b-v1.3
- yeldarb 3y ago
  Which part of copyright law are model weights governed by? (Or, if not by copyright law, what's the legal basis that would let you choose a "license" for model weights?)
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Weights may or may not be subject to copyright law. Are they a mere aggregation of facts -- some uncopyrightable, and some from other sources--, or is there a creative component to them? https://libraries.emory.edu/research/copyright/copyright-data https://libraries.emory.edu/research/copyright/copyright-dat...
  - realusername 3y ago
    There's no basis for models to be copyrightable that I can think of, licences on models are legal fictions for now until there's a new addition into copyright laws.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      It has not yet been challenged, so we don’t really know yet. Personally I will be surprised if weights aren’t considered to be licensable - courts are a lot more practical than one might expect.