4 ms·

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 ope

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 2y ago
Applying Apache or MIT to a binary blob doesn't make it open source either
- littlestymaar 2y 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 2y ago
    Are you implying movies (binary blobs) are not subject to copyright laws?
    - littlestymaar 2y 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.
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Then it would just be a copy then. Copies need a license. >Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine. No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made. If copies were allowed of binary blobs people could legally make pirate sites sharing copies like that.
        1y ago

piperswe 2y ago

Applying Apache or MIT to a binary blob doesn't make it open source either

littlestymaar 2y 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 2y ago
  Are you implying movies (binary blobs) are not subject to copyright laws?
  - littlestymaar 2y 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.
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Then it would just be a copy then. Copies need a license. >Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine. No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made. If copies were allowed of binary blobs people could legally make pirate sites sharing copies like that.
        1y ago