4 ms·

I believe the training and inference code is open sourced as well, just not the training data itself, and I think we all agree, data != source.

skeledrew 2y ago
Actually, in the case of models, training data is functionally ~= code, as the final item cannot be reproduced without it. And, as the open source definition states in its criteria 2: "Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed."[0]. The intermediate output in this case being the weights. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spunker540 2y ago
  I don’t think open source authors have a responsibility to also open source their binary. And if they do happen to provide a binary they aren’t also required to open source their compiler. Usually just the source code. I personally feel if they opened source only the code and not any model weights, it would still be fair to call it open source because “open source” refers to the code itself, not artifacts produced by the code, or possible inputs to the code.
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    It's a matter of intention. The intention of open source is to allow for anyone to be able to sufficiently reproduce some given artifact, at no/reasonable charge (as stated in the definition). Yes, the source code for a binary must be made available, if is to follow the OSD. No, the compiler doesn't need to be open sourced, unless it's an integral part of the program (a compiler would also have to be made available if there's none generally available for the source language). This intention necessarily translates to models. In order to reproduce a program, the source code and a relevant compiler is what is required. In order to reproduce a model, the architecture (source code), training data and initial parameters are required.

4 ms·

I believe the training and inference code is open sourced as well, just not the training data itself, and I think we all agree, data != source.

by spunker540 2y ago

skeledrew 2y ago
Actually, in the case of models, training data is functionally ~= code, as the final item cannot be reproduced without it. And, as the open source definition states in its criteria 2: "Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed."[0]. The intermediate output in this case being the weights. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spunker540 2y ago
  I don’t think open source authors have a responsibility to also open source their binary. And if they do happen to provide a binary they aren’t also required to open source their compiler. Usually just the source code. I personally feel if they opened source only the code and not any model weights, it would still be fair to call it open source because “open source” refers to the code itself, not artifacts produced by the code, or possible inputs to the code.
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    It's a matter of intention. The intention of open source is to allow for anyone to be able to sufficiently reproduce some given artifact, at no/reasonable charge (as stated in the definition). Yes, the source code for a binary must be made available, if is to follow the OSD. No, the compiler doesn't need to be open sourced, unless it's an integral part of the program (a compiler would also have to be made available if there's none generally available for the source language). This intention necessarily translates to models. In order to reproduce a program, the source code and a relevant compiler is what is required. In order to reproduce a model, the architecture (source code), training data and initial parameters are required.