3 ms·

> that the AI field has somehow normalised the goalpost moving from capabilities all the way to definitions about open source The problem is that Facebook and

by diggan 2y ago

> that the AI field has somehow normalised the goalpost moving from capabilities all the way to definitions about open source The problem is that Facebook and others are trying to move the goalpost, while others like me would like the goalpost to remain where it is, namely we call projects "Open source" when the required parts to build it on our own machines, is sufficiently accessible. As I probably wouldn't be a developer in the first place if it wasn't for FOSS, and I spend literally all day long contributing to others FOSS projects and working on my own, it's kind of scary seeing these large companies trying to change what FOSS means. I think you're forgetting about the intent and purpose of open source. The goal is that people can run software for whatever purpose they want, and they can modify it for whatever purpose. This is the intent behind the licenses we use when we "create FOSS". This means, in practice, that the source code has to be accessible somehow, so the compiler I have on my computer, can build a similar binary to the one the project itself offers (if it does). The source code has to be accessible so I can build the project, but also modify it for myself. Taking this idea that mostly only applied to software before (FOSS) but applying it to ML instead, it's clear to see what we need in order to 1) be able to use it as we want and 2) be able to modify it as we want. > You can see the weights. You can change the weights. You can re-distribute the weights. It's open source. Right. If I upload a binary to some website, you can see the binary, you can change the binary and you can re-distribute it. Would you say the binary is open source? The weights are the binary in ML contexts. It's OK for projects to publish those weights, but it's not OK to suddenly change the definition and meaning of open source because companies want to look like they're doing FOSS, when in reality they're publishing binaries without any ways of building those binaries with your own changes. Imagine if the Linux kernel was just a big binary blob. Yes, you can change it, re-distribute and what not, but only in a binary-blob shape. You'd be kind of out there if you insist on calling this binary-blob kernel FOSS. I'm sure you'd be able to convince some Facebook engineers about it, seems they're rolling with that idea already, but the rest of us who exist in the FOSS ecosystem? We'd still have the same goalpost in the exact same spot it's been for at least two decades I've been involved.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago
> Would you say the binary is open source? Great question. Is the assembly code in a git, with an open source license? Then yes! It's open source! Think about it this way: just because someone wrote hello world in c and then a compiler translated that into assembly, doesn't invalidate the quality of that assembly code being open source! That's the point. Something is open source or not if the resulting stuff is published under an open source license. Can you see the assembly code? Can you change it? Can you re-publish it? If all of these are yes, then it's open source! > Imagine if the Linux kernel ... That is semantics. The linux kernel is published in c because it's easier for people to reason in that abstracted language, but it would not suddenly become "closed source" if it were written in asm, assuming it would still be published under an open source license. In other words, you having access to the "dataset" would not make the weights any easier to work with. They would still be in a "blob" as you call it.
- diggan 2y ago
  Interesting points, regardless of how much I disagree with them, so thank you for sharing your views :) > Think about it this way: just because someone wrote hello world in c and then a compiler translated that into assembly I understand your point, since it's technically assembly, you could license that assembly under a FOSS license and now the thing you distributed is "open". I agree you could do this, but you shouldn't use "open source" to describe what you're doing there, unless the actual source for building that asm is open too. The binary might be available, but "open source" is something that applies to source code, not to what we distribute. If your source is C and your output is assembly, but you only try to apply a FOSS license to the output, not the source, it'd be a hard sell to call the source is open and available. The closest I've come to finding some sort of backing to this view I hold is what OSI echos here: > What if I do not want to distribute my program in source code form? Or what if I don’t want to distribute it in either source or binary form? > If you don’t distribute source code, then what you are distributing cannot meaningfully be called “Open Source”. And if you don’t distribute at all, then by definition you’re not distributing source code, so you’re not distributing anything Open Source. [...] Open Source licenses are always applied to the source code — so if you’re not distributing the source, then you’re not distributing the thing to which an Open Source license applies https://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution https://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution Similarly, I wouldn't call a song I release as "open source" (not that it makes much sense in this case) unless the actual "source" of how it was produced is public under a FOSS license, even if you can technically read the sound data however you want, and modify it by patching the audio file. Instead, some other liberal license is more suitable that allows using/modifying/redistributing the output however you want (Creative Commons is common for those use cases), but not a license that is specifically about source code. > That is semantics. The linux kernel is published in c because it's easier for people to reason in that abstracted language, but it would not suddenly become "closed source" if it were written in asm, assuming it would still be published under an open source license. I agree with this too, if suddenly the kernel was written in asm, and it's being distributed as asm, then you can license that asm as "open source" and that'd be OK. What wouldn't be "open source", would be if it's written in C, but that C code isn't licensed "open source", but the authors tries to argue that the compiled asm output is "open source". It's output, not source, so you cannot license the output as "open source" as it's missing that last part, the "source". > In other words, you having access to the "dataset" would not make the weights any easier to work with. They would still be in a "blob" as you call it. Precisely. So the requirements end up something like: Can I build this thing from scratch myself, granted I have the required equipment + knowledge + time? For LLM models, at least the training script + the dataset has to be available without restrictions for that to be possible. If they're not available, or available but under restrictions (usage or otherwise), then it's not open source.

by diggan 2y ago

NitpickLawyer 2y ago

> Would you say the binary is open source? Great question. Is the assembly code in a git, with an open source license? Then yes! It's open source! Think about it this way: just because someone wrote hello world in c and then a compiler translated that into assembly, doesn't invalidate the quality of that assembly code being open source! That's the point. Something is open source or not if the resulting stuff is published under an open source license. Can you see the assembly code? Can you change it? Can you re-publish it? If all of these are yes, then it's open source! > Imagine if the Linux kernel ... That is semantics. The linux kernel is published in c because it's easier for people to reason in that abstracted language, but it would not suddenly become "closed source" if it were written in asm, assuming it would still be published under an open source license. In other words, you having access to the "dataset" would not make the weights any easier to work with. They would still be in a "blob" as you call it.

diggan 2y ago
Interesting points, regardless of how much I disagree with them, so thank you for sharing your views :) > Think about it this way: just because someone wrote hello world in c and then a compiler translated that into assembly I understand your point, since it's technically assembly, you could license that assembly under a FOSS license and now the thing you distributed is "open". I agree you could do this, but you shouldn't use "open source" to describe what you're doing there, unless the actual source for building that asm is open too. The binary might be available, but "open source" is something that applies to source code, not to what we distribute. If your source is C and your output is assembly, but you only try to apply a FOSS license to the output, not the source, it'd be a hard sell to call the source is open and available. The closest I've come to finding some sort of backing to this view I hold is what OSI echos here: > What if I do not want to distribute my program in source code form? Or what if I don’t want to distribute it in either source or binary form? > If you don’t distribute source code, then what you are distributing cannot meaningfully be called “Open Source”. And if you don’t distribute at all, then by definition you’re not distributing source code, so you’re not distributing anything Open Source. [...] Open Source licenses are always applied to the source code — so if you’re not distributing the source, then you’re not distributing the thing to which an Open Source license applies https://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution https://opensource.org/faq#non-distribution Similarly, I wouldn't call a song I release as "open source" (not that it makes much sense in this case) unless the actual "source" of how it was produced is public under a FOSS license, even if you can technically read the sound data however you want, and modify it by patching the audio file. Instead, some other liberal license is more suitable that allows using/modifying/redistributing the output however you want (Creative Commons is common for those use cases), but not a license that is specifically about source code. > That is semantics. The linux kernel is published in c because it's easier for people to reason in that abstracted language, but it would not suddenly become "closed source" if it were written in asm, assuming it would still be published under an open source license. I agree with this too, if suddenly the kernel was written in asm, and it's being distributed as asm, then you can license that asm as "open source" and that'd be OK. What wouldn't be "open source", would be if it's written in C, but that C code isn't licensed "open source", but the authors tries to argue that the compiled asm output is "open source". It's output, not source, so you cannot license the output as "open source" as it's missing that last part, the "source". > In other words, you having access to the "dataset" would not make the weights any easier to work with. They would still be in a "blob" as you call it. Precisely. So the requirements end up something like: Can I build this thing from scratch myself, granted I have the required equipment + knowledge + time? For LLM models, at least the training script + the dataset has to be available without restrictions for that to be possible. If they're not available, or available but under restrictions (usage or otherwise), then it's not open source.