3 ms·

The "open" and "permissive" license has an interesting section on "AI Ethics": > AI Ethics. NVIDIA is committed to safety, trust and transparency in AI develop

by diggan 2y ago

The "open" and "permissive" license has an interesting section on "AI Ethics": > AI Ethics. NVIDIA is committed to safety, trust and transparency in AI development. NVIDIA encourages You to (a) ensure that the product or service You develop, use, offer as a service or distributes meets the legal and ethical requirements of the relevant industry or use case, (b) take reasonable measures to address unintended bias and to mitigate harm to others, including underrepresented or vulnerable groups, and (c) inform users of the nature and limitations of the product or service. NVIDIA expressly prohibits the use of its products or services for any purpose in violation of applicable law or regulation, including but not limited to (a) illegal surveillance, (b) illegal collection or processing of biometric information without the consent of the subject where required under applicable law, or (c) illegal harassment, abuse, threatening or bullying of individuals or groups of individuals or intentionally misleading or deceiving others https://developer.download.nvidia.com/licenses/nvidia-open-model-license-agreement-june-2024.pdf https://developer.download.nvidia.com/licenses/nvidia-open-m... Besides limiting the freedom of use (making it less "open" in my eyes), it's interesting that they tell you to meet "ethical requirements of the relevant industry or use case". Seems like that'd be super hard to pin down in a precise way.

jerbear4328 2y ago
I read that as "NVIDIA encourages you to be ethical and prohibits breaking the law. That doesn't seem so bad to me. What is bad, however, is section 2.1. > 2.1 ... If You institute ... litigation against any entity ... alleging that the Model or a Derivative Model constitutes direct or contributory copyright or patent infringement, then any licenses granted to You under this Agreement for that Model or Derivative Model will terminate... If you sue or file a copyright claim that the model violates copyright, you lose your license to use the model. That's a really weird restriction, I'm not sure what the point is.
- bcatanzaro 2y ago
  The point is: if you sue claiming this model breaks the law, you lose your license to use it. Apache 2.0 has a similar restriction: “ If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.”
  - jerbear4328 2y ago
    Oh, I didn't realize that it was a standard term. I'm sure there's a good motivation then, it doesn't seem so bad.
  - orra 2y ago
    True, although it's unusual to see it for copyright not patents. That said, the far bigger issue is the end of the same clause 2.1: > NVIDIA may update this Agreement to comply with legal and regulatory requirements at any time and You agree to either comply with any updated license or cease Your copying, use, and distribution of the Model and any Derivative Model
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  Sounds reasonable to me. If you are going to claim in court the the model is illegal then why exactly are you using it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
It's good they have included this clause, despite it being difficult to legally pin down. Hopefully, there will be a lawsuit at some point which will create some ethical boundaries that AI developers and users much not cross.
imglorp 2y ago
Very weaselly worded. Some things that appear to be allowed: * intended bias * legal surveillance * legal collection of biometrics without consent * legal harrassment Ie, state sanctioned killbots are just fine!
- telotortium 2y ago
  No copyright license is going to stop a state from using the model for the military use that they really need. First of all, I’m pretty sure most countries have laws allowing the state to ignore copyright in the case of national defense. More importantly, power does what it wants and what it can get away with.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
It says "NVIDIA encourages You to..." Which, in terms of a contract, means absolutely nothing at all.
- mushufasa 2y ago
  Google famously removed "don't be evil" because lawyers pushed back on who gets to define evil. I can imagine same logic applies here: Nvidia isn't about to define objective morality, so the best alternative is to ask people to try their best.
- brianshaler 2y ago
  I'm not sure what business GP is in, but being encouraged not to be unethical and explicitly forbidding illegal activity doesn't seem like much of an infringement on one's freedom more than the applicable laws. I guess being arrested for crimes is one thing, but having a license revoked on top of that is just one step too far?

by diggan 2y ago

jerbear4328 2y ago

I read that as "NVIDIA encourages you to be ethical and prohibits breaking the law. That doesn't seem so bad to me. What is bad, however, is section 2.1. > 2.1 ... If You institute ... litigation against any entity ... alleging that the Model or a Derivative Model constitutes direct or contributory copyright or patent infringement, then any licenses granted to You under this Agreement for that Model or Derivative Model will terminate... If you sue or file a copyright claim that the model violates copyright, you lose your license to use the model. That's a really weird restriction, I'm not sure what the point is.

bcatanzaro 2y ago
The point is: if you sue claiming this model breaks the law, you lose your license to use it. Apache 2.0 has a similar restriction: “ If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.”
- jerbear4328 2y ago
  Oh, I didn't realize that it was a standard term. I'm sure there's a good motivation then, it doesn't seem so bad.
- orra 2y ago
  True, although it's unusual to see it for copyright not patents. That said, the far bigger issue is the end of the same clause 2.1: > NVIDIA may update this Agreement to comply with legal and regulatory requirements at any time and You agree to either comply with any updated license or cease Your copying, use, and distribution of the Model and any Derivative Model
sebzim4500 2y ago
Sounds reasonable to me. If you are going to claim in court the the model is illegal then why exactly are you using it?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

It's good they have included this clause, despite it being difficult to legally pin down. Hopefully, there will be a lawsuit at some point which will create some ethical boundaries that AI developers and users much not cross.

imglorp 2y ago

Very weaselly worded. Some things that appear to be allowed: * intended bias * legal surveillance * legal collection of biometrics without consent * legal harrassment Ie, state sanctioned killbots are just fine!

telotortium 2y ago
No copyright license is going to stop a state from using the model for the military use that they really need. First of all, I’m pretty sure most countries have laws allowing the state to ignore copyright in the case of national defense. More importantly, power does what it wants and what it can get away with.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

It says "NVIDIA encourages You to..." Which, in terms of a contract, means absolutely nothing at all.

mushufasa 2y ago
Google famously removed "don't be evil" because lawyers pushed back on who gets to define evil. I can imagine same logic applies here: Nvidia isn't about to define objective morality, so the best alternative is to ask people to try their best.
brianshaler 2y ago
I'm not sure what business GP is in, but being encouraged not to be unethical and explicitly forbidding illegal activity doesn't seem like much of an infringement on one's freedom more than the applicable laws. I guess being arrested for crimes is one thing, but having a license revoked on top of that is just one step too far?