[HN Gopher] Open washing - why companies pretend to be open source
___________________________________________________________________
Open washing - why companies pretend to be open source
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 109 points
Date : 2024-10-26 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| cranberryturkey wrote:
| heh. i've seen this a lot lately.
| bubblesnort wrote:
| Open source never had any of the ethics or philosophy that free
| software has.
|
| Free software > open source.
| trehalose wrote:
| Do you think, if open source never existed, if there were only
| free software and non-free software, we wouldn't be arguing
| about whether AI corporations can truly call their free models
| free?
| mrweasel wrote:
| Companies always seemed much more weary of "free software" as
| compared to open source. Probably because of the ambiguous
| meaning of free in English, honestly that is one of the
| reason we have open source as a concept.
|
| Companies like the flexibility in "open source", even
| companies who release code as GPL rarely talk about "free
| software", they are open source companies.
| pessimizer wrote:
| How could we? Free Software makes it clear that when you
| modify the Free thing and productize it, you have to share
| the modifications with the public under the same licensing.
| What's there to argue about? You're either doing that or
| you're not. If you find a loophole in the text, then the
| license gets updated, the loophole explicitly closed, and
| everybody who agrees moves to the new version.
| arccy wrote:
| based on current license choice of projects, turns out most
| people don't agree...
| Ekaros wrote:
| Free is ambiguous term. It might be free in code and price.
| Or it might be free in price, but closed source. It could
| be free for me as private person, but not for business.
|
| Is freeware free software? It is rather murky term for me.
| jraph wrote:
| You are confusing Free Software with copyleft.
|
| Free Software licenses and Open source licenses are
| essentially the same (apart a few odd examples).
|
| The difference between the free software movement and the
| open source software movement is essentially philosophical.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Free Software licenses and Open source licenses are
| essentially the same (apart a few odd examples).
|
| Apart from every example of GPL software, which can't be
| used under the permissive terms of Open Source. The last
| person I replied to about this used the word
| "essentially" here, also. Is there a common source slogan
| for this belief?
|
| Also, somebody should tell all of the people who keep
| rewriting GPL stuff in order to have an MIT version.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Non-copyleft licenses can also qualify as Free Software
| under the FSF definition.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is a technicality. Non-copyleft licenses can qualify
| as Free Software because they can be easily relicensed
| into Free Software (as well as into proprietary
| software.)
| mistrial9 wrote:
| in English, the word "free" has not served well.. suggested
| alternative "libre" ... oh, except LOSS does not sound great!
| seems challenging right now.. "free" has failed IMHO .. it is
| literally mocked by finance people no? every adult in the US
| and elsewhere must pay bills.. "free" is failing as a label
| homebrewer wrote:
| Probably should have called it "freedom software" like
| "freedom fighter" or "freedom units" (as opposed to metric
| units).
| bubblesnort wrote:
| It's not too late for that.
| Ringz wrote:
| Don't forget ,,Freedom Fries".
| anthk wrote:
| Fair software.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Free Software has been wildly and unimaginably successful,
| and undergirds the world economy.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| certainly agree (to clarify)
| martin-t wrote:
| The second goal is muddying the waters and making people not
| care.
|
| Say you're deciding between two programs (or AI models)[0], you
| prefer an open source one, a colleague prefers one that just
| pretends to be open. You say your choice is preferable because
| it's open, he says the same about his choice. Then you say the
| dreaded "well, actually" and either you sound like a
| fundamentalist or an asshole.
|
| [0]: None of those are truly open source because they're all
| trained on stolen data. And see? Now I sound like a
| fundamentalist.
| Spivak wrote:
| I'm not sure why training on stolen data would disqualify them
| if said data was available or at minimum accurately specified
| what it was.
| youoy wrote:
| If (stolen) data is available to download ok, that would be
| the accurate definition of open AI model. But "accurately
| specified" is not because you would need to trust that the
| person specifying it is actually honestly doing it. And I
| think we all know what happens to all that honesty when
| economic interests are in place.
| martin-t wrote:
| The data is bound by licenses which affect how the resulting
| model can be used. I release most of my public code under
| AGPL so that, for most intents and purposes, anybody using it
| has to also make their code public and benefit society at
| large.
|
| Now, with LLMs, anybody can launder my code and use it to
| build proprietary software for his own benefit without giving
| anything back. That is a violation of the spirit of AGPL and
| hopefully the law too.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Available doesn't excuse anything. I don't know why people
| say it like it matters.
|
| When CBS lets you watch a show on their web site, even for
| free and anonymously, they still own the show and did not
| grant you any right to re-distribute or re-use it.
|
| What AIs do is also not fair use, because that isn't just
| about the size of a quote but about usage. A discussion is
| fair use, excerpting simply to pluck a cherry and present it
| as your own is not.
| myworkinisgood wrote:
| Great point!
| Sytten wrote:
| Direct consequence IMO of our failure to popularize good licenses
| in another concept like fair source that sits in-between open
| source and closed source. My small non-saas bootstrap company
| could not survive if it was OSS, but maybe fair source.
| rietta wrote:
| I attended the referenced talk by Dan Lorenc in Alpharetta this
| week. It was very interesting. He hammered on how many licenses
| flunk the OSI test despite claiming to be open source.
| nmstoker wrote:
| See also: "AI Washing".
|
| Externally done to give a kick to sales efforts.
|
| And internally done in an attempt to get someone with AI
| resources to build blatantly non-AI functions by sticking then
| onto something with no or very little genuine AI angle.
| BerislavLopac wrote:
| To be fair, any products that rely on "AI" in naming or
| advertising is "washed" in some way -- AI is simply a marketing
| term, not a technical one. Especially considering that it
| covers so many different (albeit related) things -- LLMs, image
| generation, computer vision, machine learning etc -- that it
| became completely void of any useful meaning.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| AI is pretty much a technical term.
|
| It's just a very wide category that is basically meaningless
| nowadays because it applies to everything.
|
| Marketers are even restrained in using it, because applying
| it everywhere it could go would sound insane and cringe. But
| it is a technical term, that technically applies to all those
| things people put it on.
| an_d_rew wrote:
| I have worked at multiple companies that vilified open source
| anything, while building their entire businesses on Linux, Java,
| Debian, and thousands of other "OSI Approved" software.
|
| It's because, in my experience, the majority of businesses want
| to take but do not want to feel any obligation to give back or
| support.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Most businesses are started to earn money. Using free stuff
| while not giving anything away seems perfectly in line with
| those goals.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Which was the entire purpose of Open Source, from conception,
| and the only way it is distinct from other licenses. Open
| Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without
| giving anything away.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it
| without giving anything away.
|
| No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for
| essentially the same thing. The Free Software Foundation
| has a preference for licenses which go beyond its own Free
| Software Definition [0] and which are also "Copyleft" [1],
| but does not define Free Software in a way which requires
| that it also be Copyleft.
|
| [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
| pessimizer wrote:
| > No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for
| essentially the same thing.
|
| This is not substantially true, which is why I assume
| you've added "essentially" in here. Open Source is Free
| Software, because anybody can take it and make it
| anything they want as long as they comply with the
| minimal license terms. Open Source can be proprietary,
| too, if somebody takes it, complies with the minimal
| license terms, and makes it proprietary.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This is not substantially true, which is why I assume
| you've added "essentially" in here.
|
| No, it is. The OSI Open Source definition and the FSF
| Free Software definition are framed differently but
| require substantially the same things, and for virtually
| every license on which both have expressed an opinion,
| they have cone to the same conclusion as to whether it
| meets each organization's requirements.
|
| Free Software does _not_ require a license that prevents
| proprietary re-licensing, that is an additional separate
| concern _beyond_ the Free Software definition (Copyleft);
| the FSF generally _prefers_ copyleft licenses, but
| recognizes non-copyleft licenses as Free Software
| licenses.
|
| You seem to under the mistaken impression that copyleft
| is a requirement to meet the Free Software definition,
| but that has never been the case.
| LtWorf wrote:
| > Most businesses are started to earn money.
|
| I thought tech startups were started to con people into
| thinking they might earn money.
| rvnx wrote:
| At the same time Facebook is doing some of the best efforts for
| open-AI, so it's a bit hard to blame them. They are not perfect
| but they still spent and shared the most important artifact that
| was created out of dozens of millions of USD spent (or even
| more), though not the dataset, but it is really a major advance
| forward.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| True, this needs clarification that currently doesn't exist for
| large models where training costs heavy millions and binary
| artifact is both precious and malleable - unlike ordinary
| compilation.
|
| Regardless if - once OSI establishes their definition(s) - Meta
| will choose path of adherence or not, they still deserve a
| paragraph of praise for what they're doing.
|
| As a side note OSI should also recognize that in the era of giant
| cloud providers protection from predatory market participants is
| also a thing and should exist as clear licensing option. Mongo,
| Elastic and Redis drama could be avoided in the future if there
| was a clear option to protect author side sustainability without
| affecting open source spirit for end users.
|
| ps. I also believe that "Open <something>" should be protected
| phrase similar to how "Police", "Federal", "Government" or
| "Organic" is protected to not mislead the public so we don't have
| things like "OpenAI" nonsense.
| meehai wrote:
| I think Open Weights is a better name for AI models that don't
| share the reproducible training scripts and data.
| stonethrowaway wrote:
| I've commented on these moves and jukes a few months ago. In the
| spirit of not reposting, the original is here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41090142
| teddyh wrote:
| Cue the several weasels who regularly turn up, arguing that "Open
| Source" can mean whatever they say it means, since they don't
| accept the OSI definition.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| I get were you're coming from, but there is truth to that -
| especially in english.
|
| As a random example, when is the last time you heard the term
| "racism" in the context of someone actually discriminating a
| person according to their race for example? I can't even
| remember the last time that happened, it's always some form of
| perceived discrimination, but the discriminator is usually
| nationality, cultural etc - never actually the _race_. And that
| 's with the term racism actually including the word _race_
|
| There are countless examples like that because the words
| ultimately mean what the population in general thinks they mean
| vs what it initially meant.
|
| It's admittedly frustrating if you're aware of the original
| definition and people just randomly redefine the meaning
| however. I've experienced that quiet a few times at this point
| teddyh wrote:
| It's different when it's a regular word, used for ages.
| However, the term "Open Source" (as applied to software) was
| _created_ by the OSI to explicitly mean exactly the OSI
| definition, no more, no less. The OSI definition was based on
| the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which Debian had to
| write because, IIRC, at the time not even the FSF had a
| strict definition of what constituted free software, and
| Debian needed some lines to be drawn in order to know what
| they did and did not want to distribute on Debian CD:s.
| Claiming something is "Open Source" but not OSI-approved is
| like claiming something is "legal" just because you
| personally think it's acceptable, even when the actual law
| does not agree. Some terms come with strict definitions.
| evanelias wrote:
| > the term "Open Source" (as applied to software) was
| _created_ by the OSI
|
| This is historical revisionism, and it's especially
| terrible that you'd call people "weasels" for correcting
| it. The term "open source" (as applied to software) was in-
| use prior to the existence of the OSI, and that's
| explicitly why the OSI wasn't able to obtain a trademark on
| the term. The term meant something roughly equivalent to
| how we use "source available" today.
|
| Read https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-
| undefined-part... for a really good deep-dive into the
| prior usage of the term.
| teddyh wrote:
| Even if we would assume that everything you say is true,
| does this make it reasonable to claim, _today_ , that we
| can call something "Open Source" if it isn't OSI-
| approved? No, I would say that, _today_ , "Open Source"
| is what OSI says it is. Only weasels try to claim
| otherwise; i.e. the only people I see doing it are
| weasels who are trying to defend the indefensible by
| arguing the definition of words.
| evanelias wrote:
| > Even if we would assume that everything you say is true
|
| It's not my blog post, so you don't have to take my word
| for it. But if you disagree with that post author's
| findings, perhaps you could indicate what you disagree
| with. The post extensively links citations/sources.
|
| > does this make it reasonable to claim, today, that we
| can call something "Open Source" if it isn't OSI-
| approved?
|
| OSI isn't the boss of me, and I see no reason to let them
| dictate the meaning of terminology that they didn't
| invent and don't hold a trademark for. The two main
| founders of OSI also haven't been involved with it for
| quite some time, and besides, one of them regularly makes
| politically-charged comments that I find repulsive. Why
| exactly are we putting this random small non-profit on a
| pedestal?
|
| Personally, I stick to "source available" when referring
| to non-OSI licenses, but that's strictly to avoid getting
| shouted at by people who inexplicably treat the OSD like
| a holy law from the almighty. I think the industry would
| be a lot healthier if we avoided these extreme views.
|
| > Only weasels try to claim otherwise; i.e. the only
| people I see doing it are weasels who are trying to
| defend the indefensible by arguing the definition of
| words.
|
| It sure sounds like you think anyone who disagrees with
| your point of view is a weasel, even if they have a well-
| researched reason for the disagreement!
| JambalayaJimbo wrote:
| "Race" is itself a vague and almost meaningless term.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| In today's world: definitely!
|
| There can be less genetic differences between people from
| (for example) Asia and Africa vs actual family members.
|
| But feel like the intent of the word was very much not
| vague. It was initially just about the optical differences
| between people that were born on different continents -
| which are/were very easy to discern ~150 yrs ago when it
| extremely rare for "interracial" offspring.
|
| But that's mostly down to people being people and not
| caring about these differences at large. Give it a few
| hundred years and these physical differences such as skin
| color, average body sizes etc will have gone away, too. At
| least I think they will.
|
| So I feel that this is a great example of another word
| that's become so charged with political meaning that the
| origins meaning has been lost or at least changed along the
| way. And it continues to lose it with every kid that has
| parents of varying origin
| kvemkon wrote:
| Related:
|
| OSI readies controversial open-source AI definition (26.10.2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951421
| gradientsrneat wrote:
| Article commenter points out that Meta is a funder of the OSI.
| We'll see if that affects how the OSI defines "open" AI models.
|
| I find it funny how OpenAI was only indirectly mentioned. Still,
| I'm glad that this columnist is taking a principled stance by
| arguing aginst one of the more borderline cases.
| tzs wrote:
| > The Open Source Initiative (OSI) spells it out in the Open
| Source Definition, and Llama 3's license - with clauses on
| litigation and branding - flunks it on several grounds.
|
| Anyone know specifically what he is talking about here?
|
| The only things I'm seeing that I would consider to be clauses on
| litigation are one that terminates your license if you sue them
| claiming Llama 3 or its output violates your IP, and the have a
| choice of venue and choice of forum clause.
|
| Several OSI approved licenses have "terminate on patent suit"
| clauses. Llama 3 is termination on IP suit rather than just on
| patent suit but I don't see anything in the OSD where that would
| make a difference.
|
| There's stuff about trademarks, which I assume are the branding
| clauses he mentions. But I don't see anything obvious on the OSD
| that such clauses violate.
| pessimizer wrote:
| But they said "several grounds" in the article. Isn't that
| enough? Why would you expect them to explain exactly where and
| how? A license is just a vibe anyway, it's the spirit that's
| important.
| LtWorf wrote:
| The article isn't a dissertation on that topic, you can check
| more by yourself if you're interested.
| tzs wrote:
| I _did_ check for myself. And failed to find anything in
| the clauses on litigation or branding that obviously
| violated anything in OSI 's Open Software Definition (OSD).
|
| Hence, the question.
|
| Simonw's response points out some unusual clauses, and at
| least one of them looks like it might go against one of the
| requirements in the OSD but it is not a litigation or
| branding clause and the article specifically called out the
| litigation and branding clauses.
| simonw wrote:
| The Llama 3 license has all sorts of hokey extra clauses in it:
|
| From https://www.llama.com/llama3/license/
|
| > If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly
| active users of the products or services made available by or
| for Licensee, or Licensee's affiliates, is greater than 700
| million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month,
| you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to
| you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to
| exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until
| Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.
|
| This seems harmless... until you ask what happens if you start
| a startup on top of Llama 3, do really well and later try to
| get acquired by one of the companies that had more than 700m
| active users on that date (Apple, Microsoft, Google etc)
|
| > You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results
| of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language
| model (excluding Meta Llama 3 or derivative works thereof).
|
| That's a pretty huge restriction on ways you can use the
| models. The language "to improve any other large language
| model" is also incredibly vague.
|
| > (B) prominently display "Built with Meta Llama 3" on a
| related website, user interface, blogpost, about page, or
| product documentation. If you use the Llama Materials to
| create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model,
| which is distributed or made available, you shall also include
| "Llama 3" at the beginning of any such AI model name.
|
| I love this one, it means that if you fine-tune a model for
| erotic furry fan fiction you HAVE to call it "Llama 3 Erotic
| Furry Fan Fiction Writer" or similar.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| > The pair found that while a handful of lesser-known LLMs, such
| as AllenAI's OLMo and BigScience Workshop + HuggingFace with
| BloomZ could be considered open, most are not.
|
| It's absolutely wild to think the deranged BigScience RAIL
| license, under which the Bloom LLM was released, is open in any
| way shape or form. It has more user-harming restrictions than
| basically any other LLM license out there.
| simonw wrote:
| "Would it surprise you to know that according to the study, the
| big-name ones from Google, Meta, and Microsoft aren't? I didn't
| think so."
|
| Microsoft has a decent LLM that I'd consider to be "open source":
| Phi-3.5, under the MIT license:
| https://huggingface.co/microsoft/Phi-3.5-vision-instruct
| mistrial9 wrote:
| https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/ai-azure-ai-services-...
| neilv wrote:
| Open source was always a corporate-friendly compromise, but
| seemed like _some_ of the people involved had a lot of integrity.
|
| What we need is those open source people with integrity to put
| the smack down on those willfully abusing and destroying the
| terms.
|
| If you can't do it with
| trademarks/certifications/licensing/memberships/etc., do it with
| mainstream journalism. Like might be being done here, except _The
| Register_ has long had rare insider knowledge, and is relatively
| niche. You need to get the message out to everyone who 's not
| already in the know, including lawmakers.
|
| (Incidentally, the FSF also has integrity, but, besides prompting
| open source by being zero-compromise -- which is fine in their
| case -- they have an _additional_ challenge of seeming to be
| clinically incapable of advocacy in situations that _are_
| aligned.)
| pyeri wrote:
| That compromise thing was like eons ago when folks like Bruce
| Perens and ESR tried to tow that fine line between commercial
| open source and free libre paradigms and were successful to a
| great degree.
|
| But today, such nuance doesn't exist. The commercial ones have
| gone full commercial and making no qualms about it (thus the
| title of this post).
|
| If this attitude continues, all commercial interests in FOSS
| will be seen with high scepticism unless they have a proven
| track record of being a good actor.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| It's easy. They're draining the phrase "open source" of meaning
| while gaining by marketing themselves that way. It's fraudulent
| but also just exploitative.
| scirob wrote:
| an agregious example is thirdweb who technically has the product
| open sourced but is written to not work without an API key and
| phone home to SAAS to check your API call limit..
|
| https://github.com/thirdweb-dev/engine?tab=readme-ov-file
| https://portal.thirdweb.com/engine/self-host
|
| It makes me sad becuase I was working on a getting a team
| together to build a real opensource and free alternative but once
| they found thirdweb they all got discouraged thinking that no one
| will understand why our real open product is diffierent
| josephcsible wrote:
| If it's open source, can't you just fork it and remove that
| antifeature?
| LtWorf wrote:
| What even is this thing?
| ahaucnx wrote:
| I believe often companies or rather decision makers are afraid of
| going fully open-source because they invested a lot of money into
| the product and are afraid some other company uses it, offers it
| cheaper and ultimately harms the originator.
|
| So even they might believe in open-source they put protections in
| place that ultimately lock it down and thus make it closed source
| but trying to keep the impression of being open.
|
| In our journey at AirGradient towards becoming fully open-source
| hardware (all code and hardware licensed under CC-BY-SA), we had
| the same concerns but ultimately decided to go full-in and open
| up everything with an officially approved open-source license.
|
| I believe there are a few important aspects and "protections"
| that are open-source compatible that help companies protect their
| investments.
|
| Firstly, requiring Attribution is compatible with open-source and
| can help companies get a lot of visibility and competitors
| probably don't want to attribute another company and thus are
| often not likely to clone.
|
| Secondly, using a share-alike license also makes it unattractive
| for many other companies using the code.
|
| Lastly, I believe the code itself is often not the valuable part
| compared to the brand value, employees, reputation, business
| model, network and implicit knowledge that a company builds up.
|
| It really worked for us to go that way with a true open-source
| license and I hope many others will do it too.
|
| There are already some easy to understand licenses like CC in
| place and I do hope that they also create awareness around "open
| washing".
| mdaniel wrote:
| I can more readily(?) accept ones which mis-label their
| announcements of "Open Source!!1 under My Awesome License
| 1.0beta" than I can rug-pulls. Look, if you wanna use some
| rights-harming license and just shit on the term "Open Source,"
| that's bad, but from a certain perspective understandable if the
| marketing folks don't grok the nuances of Open Source. The world
| is filled with misguided people, and I can just command-w the
| window and never use your product
|
| But if you accept contributions from the community for years, and
| ingrain your product in hundreds of thousands of workflows around
| the world, and only _then_ decide "holy shit, salaries cost
| money, best yank our license" that should be a case of fraud and
| you should be civilly liable, _in my opinion_
| mlinksva wrote:
| > the EU still doesn't have a clear definition of open source AI
|
| One can debate "clear" but the the AI Act https://eur-
| lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj does say in Recitals 102-104
| (mini open source license definition *highlighted*):
|
| ---
|
| (102) Software and data, including models, released under a free
| and open-source licence that allows them to be openly shared and
| where users can freely access, use, modify and redistribute them
| or modified versions thereof, can contribute to research and
| innovation in the market and can provide significant growth
| opportunities for the Union economy. General-purpose AI models
| released under free and open-source licences should be considered
| to ensure high levels of transparency and openness if their
| parameters, including the weights, the information on the model
| architecture, and the information on model usage are made
| publicly available. *The licence should be considered to be free
| and open-source also when it allows users to run, copy,
| distribute, study, change and improve software and data,
| including models under the condition that the original provider
| of the model is credited, the identical or comparable terms of
| distribution are respected.*
|
| (103) Free and open-source AI components covers the software and
| data, including models and general-purpose AI models, tools,
| services or processes of an AI system. Free and open-source AI
| components can be provided through different channels, including
| their development on open repositories. For the purposes of this
| Regulation, AI components that are provided against a price or
| otherwise monetised, including through the provision of technical
| support or other services, including through a software platform,
| related to the AI component, or the use of personal data for
| reasons other than exclusively for improving the security,
| compatibility or interoperability of the software, with the
| exception of transactions between microenterprises, should not
| benefit from the exceptions provided to free and open-source AI
| components. The fact of making AI components available through
| open repositories should not, in itself, constitute a
| monetisation.
|
| (104) The providers of general-purpose AI models that are
| released under a free and open-source licence, and whose
| parameters, including the weights, the information on the model
| architecture, and the information on model usage, are made
| publicly available should be subject to exceptions as regards the
| transparency-related requirements imposed on general-purpose AI
| models, unless they can be considered to present a systemic risk,
| in which case the circumstance that the model is transparent and
| accompanied by an open-source license should not be considered to
| be a sufficient reason to exclude compliance with the obligations
| under this Regulation. In any case, given that the release of
| general-purpose AI models under free and open-source licence does
| not necessarily reveal substantial information on the data set
| used for the training or fine-tuning of the model and on how
| compliance of copyright law was thereby ensured, the exception
| provided for general-purpose AI models from compliance with the
| transparency-related requirements should not concern the
| obligation to produce a summary about the content used for model
| training and the obligation to put in place a policy to comply
| with Union copyright law, in particular to identify and comply
| with the reservation of rights pursuant to Article 4(3) of
| Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the
| Council (40).
|
| ---
|
| In the articles open-source is expressly referred to as release
| under an open-soruce license (see definition in recitals above):
|
| ---
|
| [Article 2: Scope]
|
| 12. This Regulation does not apply to AI systems released under
| free and open-source licences, unless they are placed on the
| market or put into service as high-risk AI systems or as an AI
| system that falls under Article 5 or 50.
|
| [Article 25: Responsibilities along the AI value chain]
|
| 4. The provider of a high-risk AI system and the third party that
| supplies an AI system, tools, services, components, or processes
| that are used or integrated in a high-risk AI system shall, by
| written agreement, specify the necessary information,
| capabilities, technical access and other assistance based on the
| generally acknowledged state of the art, in order to enable the
| provider of the high-risk AI system to fully comply with the
| obligations set out in this Regulation. This paragraph shall not
| apply to third parties making accessible to the public tools,
| services, processes, or components, other than general-purpose AI
| models, under a free and open-source licence.
|
| [Article 54: Authorised representatives of providers of general-
| purpose AI models]
|
| 6. The obligation set out in this Article shall not apply to
| providers of general-purpose AI models that are released under a
| free and open-source licence that allows for the access, usage,
| modification, and distribution of the model, and whose
| parameters, including the weights, the information on the model
| architecture, and the information on model usage, are made
| publicly available, unless the general-purpose AI models present
| systemic risks.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| "open source" doesn't only mean what the "open source community"
| has memed it to mean
|
| personally, I think the term should be avoided if its not what
| the open source community has made a culture around
|
| but I cant say its weasely corporate "open washing", either.
| because its the open source community that appropriated the term
| to mean a subset of free, open, commercial use licenses and
| everything digital thats necessary to replicate the product, not
| the other way around where corporations are suddenly using some
| legalese to turn it into a marketing term thats technically okay
| alexashka wrote:
| They pretend because advertising and marketing is legal.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-26 23:04 UTC)