4 ms·

It's not just a marketing label. The term is not being hijacked. Open source models, open source weights, the license chosen, these are all exetrmely valuable c

It's not just a marketing label. The term is not being hijacked. Open source models, open source weights, the license chosen, these are all exetrmely valuable concepts. The thing you want, open source model data pipelines, is a different thing. It's existence in no way invalidates the concept of an open source model. Nothing has been hijacked.

diggan 2y ago
We call software FOSS when you can compile (if needed) and build the project yourself, locally, granted you have the resources available. If you have parts that aren't FOSS attached to the project somehow, we call it "Open Core" or similar. You wouldn't call a software project FOSS if the only thing under a FOSS license is the binary itself, or some other output, we require at least the code to be FOSS for it to be considered FOSS. Meta/Llama probably started the trend, and they still today say "The open-source AI models" and "Llama is the leading open source model family" which is grossly misleading. You cannot download the Llama models or weights without signing a license agreement, you're not allowed to use it for anything you want, you need to add a disclaimer on anything that uses Llama (which almost the entire ecosystem breaks as they seemingly missed this when they signed the agreement) and so on, which to me goes directly against what FOSS means. If you cannot reproduce the artifact yourself (again, granted you have the resources), you'd have a really hard time convincing me that that is FOSS.
fzzzy 2y ago
The data pipeline to build the weights is the source. The weights are a binary. The term is being hijacked. Just call it open weights, not open source models. The source for the models is not available. The weights are openly available.
rcdwealth 2y ago
Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... If it would not be hijacked, then such articles would not exist. META is falsely and deceptively, but also carefully, pretending to be Open Source. The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Word "Open" as in "Open Source" - Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open Please refrain from using "open" or "open source" as a synonym for "free software." These terms originate from different perspectives and values. The free software movement advocates for your freedom in computing, grounded in principles of justice. The open source approach, on the other hand, does not promote a set of values in the same way. When discussing open source views, it's appropriate to use that term. However, when referring to our views, our software, or our movement, please use "free software" or "free (libre) software" instead. Using "open source" in this context can lead to misunderstandings, as it implies our views are similar to those of the open source movement.
- crawshaw 2y ago
  Your concern about Meta's license is fair, I have no useful opinion on that. I certainly wish they would use a freer license, though I am loath to look a gift horse in the mouth. My concern in this thread is people rejecting the concept of open source model weights as not "true" open source, because there is more that could be open sourced. It discounts a huge amount of value model developers provide when they open source weights. You are doing a variant of that here by trying to claim a narrow definition of "free software". I don't have any interest in the FSF definition.

diggan 2y ago

We call software FOSS when you can compile (if needed) and build the project yourself, locally, granted you have the resources available. If you have parts that aren't FOSS attached to the project somehow, we call it "Open Core" or similar. You wouldn't call a software project FOSS if the only thing under a FOSS license is the binary itself, or some other output, we require at least the code to be FOSS for it to be considered FOSS. Meta/Llama probably started the trend, and they still today say "The open-source AI models" and "Llama is the leading open source model family" which is grossly misleading. You cannot download the Llama models or weights without signing a license agreement, you're not allowed to use it for anything you want, you need to add a disclaimer on anything that uses Llama (which almost the entire ecosystem breaks as they seemingly missed this when they signed the agreement) and so on, which to me goes directly against what FOSS means. If you cannot reproduce the artifact yourself (again, granted you have the resources), you'd have a really hard time convincing me that that is FOSS.

fzzzy 2y ago

The data pipeline to build the weights is the source. The weights are a binary. The term is being hijacked. Just call it open weights, not open source models. The source for the models is not available. The weights are openly available.

rcdwealth 2y ago

Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... If it would not be hijacked, then such articles would not exist. META is falsely and deceptively, but also carefully, pretending to be Open Source. The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Word "Open" as in "Open Source" - Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open Please refrain from using "open" or "open source" as a synonym for "free software." These terms originate from different perspectives and values. The free software movement advocates for your freedom in computing, grounded in principles of justice. The open source approach, on the other hand, does not promote a set of values in the same way. When discussing open source views, it's appropriate to use that term. However, when referring to our views, our software, or our movement, please use "free software" or "free (libre) software" instead. Using "open source" in this context can lead to misunderstandings, as it implies our views are similar to those of the open source movement.

crawshaw 2y ago
Your concern about Meta's license is fair, I have no useful opinion on that. I certainly wish they would use a freer license, though I am loath to look a gift horse in the mouth. My concern in this thread is people rejecting the concept of open source model weights as not "true" open source, because there is more that could be open sourced. It discounts a huge amount of value model developers provide when they open source weights. You are doing a variant of that here by trying to claim a narrow definition of "free software". I don't have any interest in the FSF definition.