2 ms·
Thankfully, thankfully, this sort of stuff isn’t decided based on the personal reckoning of someone on Hacker News. Whether or not training data needs to be op
by cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
Thankfully, thankfully, this sort of stuff isn’t decided based on the personal reckoning of someone on Hacker News.
Whether or not training data needs to be open source in order for the resulting model to be open source is, at the very least, up for debate. And that’s a charitable interpretation. This is quite clearly instead your view based on your own personal philosophy. Software licenses are legal instruments, not a vague notion of some ideology. If you don’t think that the model is open source, you’ve obviously seen legal precedent that nobody else has.
- stefan_ 3y agoWhat? You know the people writing open source licenses have spent more than 5 minutes thinking about this, right? The GPL says it straight up: > The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it Clearly just weights don't qualify, just like C run through an obfuscator would not count.
- Zambyte 3y agoThe training data is the source. If the training data is not open, the model is not open source, because the source of the model is not open. See this previous comment of mine that explains this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40035688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40035688