3 ms·

It’s not really relevant to this release specifically but it irks me that, in general, an “open weights model” is like an “open source machine code” version of

It’s not really relevant to this release specifically but it irks me that, in general, an “open weights model” is like an “open source machine code” version of Microsoft Windows. Yes, I guess I have open access to view the thing I am about to execute! This Apple license is click wrap MIT with the rights, at least, to modify and redistribute the model itself. I suppose I should be grateful for that much openness, at least.

advisedwang 10mo ago
Great analogy. To extend the analogy, "closed source machine code" would be like conventional SaaS. There's an argument that shipping me a binary I can freely use is at least better than only providing SaaS.
limagnolia 10mo ago
I think you are looking at the code license, not the model license.
- Aloisius 10mo ago
  No, it's the model license. There's a second license for the code. Of course, model weights almost certainly are not copyrightable so the license isn't enforceable anyway, at least in the US. The EU and the UK are a different matter since they have sui generis database rights which seemingly allows individuals to own /dev/random.
  - pabs3 10mo ago
    The output of a compiler is copyrightable, why aren't models similarly copyrightable?
    - limagnolia 10mo ago
      The output of a compiler is directly based on what you put in, the source code. That makes it a derivative work of the copyrightable source code, and thus copyright to the copyright holder of the source code, not the person who runs the compiler. One might argue that model weights are derivative of the training material and copyright held be the copyright holder of the training material. The counter argument would be that the weights are significantly transformational.
satvikpendem 10mo ago
> Yes, I guess I have open access to view the thing I am about to execute! Better to execute locally than to execute remotely where you can't change or modify any part of the model though. Open weights at least mean you can retrain or distill it, which is not analogous to a compiled executable that you can't (generally) modify.

advisedwang 10mo ago

Great analogy. To extend the analogy, "closed source machine code" would be like conventional SaaS. There's an argument that shipping me a binary I can freely use is at least better than only providing SaaS.

limagnolia 10mo ago

I think you are looking at the code license, not the model license.

Aloisius 10mo ago
No, it's the model license. There's a second license for the code. Of course, model weights almost certainly are not copyrightable so the license isn't enforceable anyway, at least in the US. The EU and the UK are a different matter since they have sui generis database rights which seemingly allows individuals to own /dev/random.
- pabs3 10mo ago
  The output of a compiler is copyrightable, why aren't models similarly copyrightable?
  - limagnolia 10mo ago
    The output of a compiler is directly based on what you put in, the source code. That makes it a derivative work of the copyrightable source code, and thus copyright to the copyright holder of the source code, not the person who runs the compiler. One might argue that model weights are derivative of the training material and copyright held be the copyright holder of the training material. The counter argument would be that the weights are significantly transformational.

satvikpendem 10mo ago

> Yes, I guess I have open access to view the thing I am about to execute! Better to execute locally than to execute remotely where you can't change or modify any part of the model though. Open weights at least mean you can retrain or distill it, which is not analogous to a compiled executable that you can't (generally) modify.