7 ms·
Since it took me 5 minutes to find, the terms of use of PaliGemma are not FOSS therefore not open-source. Like not on the list on https://opensource.org/license
by iFire 2y ago
Since it took me 5 minutes to find, the terms of use of PaliGemma are not FOSS therefore not open-source. Like not on the list on https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses.
https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms
I was hopeful it was a change of license to be FOSS.
- cma 2y ago>(e) "Model Derivatives" means all (i) modifications to Gemma, (ii) works based on Gemma, or (iii) any other machine learning model which is created by transfer of patterns of the weights, parameters, operations, or Output of Gemma, to that model in order to cause that model to perform similarly to Gemma, including distillation methods that use intermediate data representations or methods based on the generation of synthetic data Outputs by Gemma for training that model. For clarity, Outputs are not deemed Model Derivatives. What's the difference between "Outputs of Gemma"/"Outputs By Gemma" (both included in "Model Derivatives") and Outputs ("not deemed Model Derivatives").
- joaogui1 2y agoI think (iii) is about models trained using Gemma output, while the "For clarity" part says that the Output itself is not a Model Derivative
- Hizonner 2y agoWhat is with these ML idiots and their compulsive abuse of the phrase "open source", anyway?
- surajrmal 2y agoOSI's definition of open source is one definition of it, and not necessarily one everyone agrees with. Folks claiming their work is open source are not beholden to this one organization's opinion about what can and cannot be considered open source. That's not to say I agree with the choice of using it in this instance, but I respect the fact that the term isn't precise enough to say it's wrong.
- pixl97 2y agoAt the end of the day until there is a legal or at least common-law definition of a term, the term can have a pretty wide definition when a large number of contracts are reviewed. Typically as cases around the definition go through court they become presidence. We've not reached that place in the 'open source' world.
- skybrian 2y agoThe OSI definition is fairly precise and the most commonly used definition. Anything else will add confusion. We should promote the OSI definition and discourage imprecise usage.
- exceptione 2y agoYeah, let's agree the term open source can mean anything, for example closed source. There is no small nuance to intellectualize about here if 98% of the discussed thing is the contrary of what you claim it is. (Now, one could argue it is 90%, won't help)
- actionfromafar 2y agoIn the age of Software Bill of Materials and increasing focus on upstream attacks, the OSI definitions via the SPDX list, is getting increasingly rigid and used as terms of art. While I like you am a linguistic descriptivist, I can also recognize attempts to confuse and white-wash.
- Hizonner 2y agoThe OSD is literally as old as the phrase itself, and was popularized along with the phrase. I actually don't like some parts of the OSD that much, but it's as close to a universally accepted definition as you'll ever get for anything. ... and even if you don't accept the OSD, what these people are distributing isn't source code in any sense at all. Nor do their restrictions usually resemble what the average person would think of as "open".
- jsheard 2y agoIt's also quite ironic how on one hand ML companies feel entitled to use any material they want for training a model, but on the other hand also feel entitled to place restrictions on how that model or its output can be used, in some cases even proclaiming that you cannot use the output of their model to train your own model. Copyright for me but not for thee. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ > What you cannot do. You may not use our Services for any illegal, harmful, or abusive activity. For example, you may not: > Use Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI. Training ChatGPT on the entire corpus of human creation is "fair use", but training a model on ChatGPTs output is "illegal, harmful, or abusive activity".
- whimsicalism 2y ago> training a model on ChatGPTs output is "illegal, harmful, or abusive activity". it doesn't say that and terms of service violations aren't illegal per se. either way, everybody is ignoring these restrictions and OAI is way too afraid to try to enforce it for the reasons you've mentioned
- Hizonner 2y ago> Copyright for me but not for thee. Especially amusing because, although you can argue about whether training a model is an infringment, most of the training data actually have copyrights. ML models, on the other hand, are not works of authorship and have no copyright protection at all, period. Or at least that's the natural interpretation of copyright law as it's been applied everywhere up to this point. I suspect that the large commercial interests involved will manage to buy either favorable (but bogus) court decisions or favorable (but stupid) legislation.
- makk 2y agoPerhaps they are relying on their LLM’s hallucinated definitions of open source?
- abirch 2y agoI think the article says open source. The project itself only says open. https://ai.google.dev/gemma https://ai.google.dev/gemma
- slowhadoken 2y agoIt’s called ‘openwashing’. I’m glad people are talking about it. When I’ve brought it up in the past on Hacker News people screeched at me.
- TechDebtDevin 2y agoYou mean what is with these corporate entities abuse of the phrase open source. This isn't new.
- panarky 2y agoGoogle calls PaliGemma "open" not "open source". https://ai.google.dev/gemma/docs/paligemma https://ai.google.dev/gemma/docs/paligemma
- whimsicalism 2y agoThis particular usage restriction seems incredibly broad > Making automated decisions in domains that affect material or individual rights or well-being (e.g., finance, legal, employment, healthcare, housing, insurance, and social welfare);
- Jensson 2y agoCan still use it for games. But Google probably put it there to avoid bad publicity from police etc using it to profile people etc.
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoThat's not too bad. Keyword: decisions, not advice/topics/recommendations/etc. So don't execute transactions, or hiring decisions, tenant application rejection, etc. I prefer no restrictions, but the reality is less melodramatic than hellbent HN contrarians would make you believe. I think it'll be okay.
- whimsicalism 2y agoyou're making a 'decision' about what to recommend. idk, vague language like this that is not court-tested is scary and will cause enterprises to think twice
- surajrmal 2y agoIs there anything specific about the use restrictions that is problematic, or the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place? It seems to me that the restrictions are sensible given the current climate around ethical use of AI.
- jchw 2y agoSomething either meets a definition of the term "open source" or it does not. It's not enough for the restrictions to seem reasonable. That doesn't mean that only open source things should be allowed to exist, just that things which are not open source should not be called open source.
- pixl97 2y ago>a definition of the term Who's definition. Mine, yours, your uncle Bobs? There is no legally defined version of the term, and the term is not trademarked/registered so at this point it is a free for all. Feel free to engage in some court cases to lock the term down at your expense.
- iFire 2y agohttps://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Open_Source_Initiative_Trademark_Policy https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines#Open_Source_Init... Here's the FAQ.
- achrono 2y agoThis is rightfully the top comment on this page (at least as of this writing). These people need to be called out relentlessly until they stop misleading the public. So much for the Altmanian infinite progress of humanity. They can't set aside their ego, their money and their power, so let's put them back in the Evil Corporate Billionaire category that such people belong to.
- sebzim4500 2y agoDoes the OSI have a trademark on the term Open Source? I don't see why anyone needs to care how they define the term.