4 ms·
One thing I wanted to add and call attention to is the importance of licensing in open models. This is often overlooked when we blindly accept the vague brandin
by blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
One thing I wanted to add and call attention to is the importance of licensing in open models. This is often overlooked when we blindly accept the vague branding of models as “open”, but I am noticing that many open weight models are actually using encumbered proprietary licenses rather than standard open source licenses that are OSI approved (https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses). As an example, Databricks’s DBRX model has a proprietary license that forces adherence to their highly restrictive Acceptable Use Policy by referencing a live website hosting their AUP (https://github.com/databricks/dbrx/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/databricks/dbrx/blob/main/LICENSE), which means as they change their AUP, you may be further restricted in the future. Meta’s Llama is similar (https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/LICENSE ). I’m not sure who can depend on these models given this flaw.
- idle_zealot 3y agoDo we even know if these licenses are binding? AFAIK we have no ruling on whether model weights are even eligible for copyright. They're machine-produced derivatives of other work, so it's not a guarantee that copyright protects them.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y agoThat’s a great point and I hope more people speak up to treat models as just numerical derivative works so they aren’t automatically granted these protections. It’s better if society meaningfully debates this and chooses the right approach.