90 ms·

Meta needs to stop open-washing their product. It simply is not open-source. The license for their precompiled binary blob (ie model) should not be considered o

Meta needs to stop open-washing their product. It simply is not open-source. The license for their precompiled binary blob (ie model) should not be considered open-source, and the source code (ie training process / data) isn’t available.

bbayer 1y ago
This is actually my first impression while I am reading the post. Mentions "open source" everywhere but dude how the earth it is open source without training data.
- ronsor 1y ago
  Almost no company is going to release training data because they don't want to waste time with lawsuits. That's why it doesn't happen. Until governments fix that issue, I don't even think the "it's not really open without training data!!!" argument is worth any time. It's more worth focusing on the various restrictions in the LLaMA license, or even better, questioning whether model weights can be licensed at all.
observationist 1y ago
They've painted themselves into a corner - the second people see the announcement that they've enforced the license on someone, people will switch to actual open source licensed models and Meta's reputation will take a hit. It's ironic that China is acting as a better good faith participant in open source than Meta. I'm sure their stakeholders don't really care right now, but Meta should switch to Apache or MIT. The longer they wait the more invested people will be and the more intense the outrage when things go wrong.
- piperswe 1y ago
  Applying Apache or MIT to a binary blob doesn't make it open source either
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    As if binary blobs were subject to copyright laws in the first place. The whole “licensing” stuff on language model is a scam, or more precisely, an attempt to create a new kind of IP laws from thin air.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Are you implying movies (binary blobs) are not subject to copyright laws?
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        The blob itself isn't, exactly: you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. What's protected is the content of the movie, and it's protected because it derives from human creativity. > The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” > […] > Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. source: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-...
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. Because that would be a derivative work. >the content of the movie Which exists as a binary blob. Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.
        littlestymaar 1y ago
        > Because that would be a derivative work No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Compiling or re-encoding still doesn't count. See : https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". > Which exists as a binary blob. Nope, for copyright protection it must exist at least as one binary blob, but having multiple binary blobs (with different resolutions) doesn't make it a different copyright piece. It's the underlying creation that is protected, not a particular instance of it. Star Wars, the Empire Strikes Back is what's registered at the Copyright Office, not Star_Wars_The_Empire_Strikes_Back.720p.avi. > Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so. Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine. One last time: copyright isn't about the blob, it's about the creation stored on it. The process of creating the blob doesn't grant you any copyright protection of you don't own the underlying material.
michaelt 1y ago
> the source code (ie training process / data) isn’t available The training data is all scraped from the internet, ebooks from libgen, papers from Sci-Hub, and suchlike. They don't have the right to redistribute it.
aprilthird2021 1y ago
I get the argument completely, but isn't the open-washing a little acceptable if they're the only big company releasing open-weights models?
- lern_too_spel 1y ago
  What is the point of considering this hypothetical? Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, and many Chinese big-tech companies also release open weights models, most with fewer restrictions.
- CaptainFever 1y ago
  My issue with Meta's open-washing is that it is also not open-weight, given the license restrictions. It's "weight-available", I suppose. Try OLMo instead.
NitpickLawyer 1y ago
> their precompiled binary blob (ie model) I agree with you that their license is not open source, but model weights are not binary blobs! Please stop spreading this misconception.

bbayer 1y ago

This is actually my first impression while I am reading the post. Mentions "open source" everywhere but dude how the earth it is open source without training data.

ronsor 1y ago
Almost no company is going to release training data because they don't want to waste time with lawsuits. That's why it doesn't happen. Until governments fix that issue, I don't even think the "it's not really open without training data!!!" argument is worth any time. It's more worth focusing on the various restrictions in the LLaMA license, or even better, questioning whether model weights can be licensed at all.

observationist 1y ago

They've painted themselves into a corner - the second people see the announcement that they've enforced the license on someone, people will switch to actual open source licensed models and Meta's reputation will take a hit. It's ironic that China is acting as a better good faith participant in open source than Meta. I'm sure their stakeholders don't really care right now, but Meta should switch to Apache or MIT. The longer they wait the more invested people will be and the more intense the outrage when things go wrong.

piperswe 1y ago
Applying Apache or MIT to a binary blob doesn't make it open source either
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  As if binary blobs were subject to copyright laws in the first place. The whole “licensing” stuff on language model is a scam, or more precisely, an attempt to create a new kind of IP laws from thin air.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Are you implying movies (binary blobs) are not subject to copyright laws?
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      The blob itself isn't, exactly: you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. What's protected is the content of the movie, and it's protected because it derives from human creativity. > The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” > […] > Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. source: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-...
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. Because that would be a derivative work. >the content of the movie Which exists as a binary blob. Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.
        littlestymaar 1y ago
        > Because that would be a derivative work No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Compiling or re-encoding still doesn't count. See : https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". > Which exists as a binary blob. Nope, for copyright protection it must exist at least as one binary blob, but having multiple binary blobs (with different resolutions) doesn't make it a different copyright piece. It's the underlying creation that is protected, not a particular instance of it. Star Wars, the Empire Strikes Back is what's registered at the Copyright Office, not Star_Wars_The_Empire_Strikes_Back.720p.avi. > Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so. Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine. One last time: copyright isn't about the blob, it's about the creation stored on it. The process of creating the blob doesn't grant you any copyright protection of you don't own the underlying material.

michaelt 1y ago

> the source code (ie training process / data) isn’t available The training data is all scraped from the internet, ebooks from libgen, papers from Sci-Hub, and suchlike. They don't have the right to redistribute it.

aprilthird2021 1y ago

I get the argument completely, but isn't the open-washing a little acceptable if they're the only big company releasing open-weights models?

lern_too_spel 1y ago
What is the point of considering this hypothetical? Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, and many Chinese big-tech companies also release open weights models, most with fewer restrictions.
CaptainFever 1y ago
My issue with Meta's open-washing is that it is also not open-weight, given the license restrictions. It's "weight-available", I suppose. Try OLMo instead.

NitpickLawyer 1y ago

> their precompiled binary blob (ie model) I agree with you that their license is not open source, but model weights are not binary blobs! Please stop spreading this misconception.