Nobody owns their data. They just scrape the internet, or pirate massive troves of books. Just forcing companies to get a license to all the data they use, let alone an open license, would be a massive impediment to the development of open models.
It is definitely doable to get openly licensed data, you just have to do it via voluntary participation of crowdsourced data acquisition programs. For example the RNNoise model was retrained from such crowdsourced data.
I suspect a little of both. Plus some people were turned off by the forced democratic “primary”. I remember similar sentiments when Hillary ran. I just realized Trump has only won when running against a woman. I think we’re just not quite ready for a female president, for whatever reason.
This relies on a court's interpretation. GPLv3 made it explicit that the user has to be provided with everything they need to install modified software. GPLv2 just says "scripts used to control installation" which can be easily interpreted to exclude private signing keys. And the LGPLv2 says when an executable statically links to the library the user must be able to produce a modified executable - nothing at all about being able to install that executable.
That is an overly obtuse interpretation. Real law doesn’t work that way. Get in front of a court and the bench judge will shut down that kind of analysis real fast. The intended interpretation is quite clear in context.
Please let the Software Freedom Conservancy know about any companies that are still in violation of the GPL by not satisfying requests for source code.
Hope is not a strategy. As much as I hate crypto, something on the blockchain might be more durable. You want something that isn't reliant on any one person or company to continue to exist (though maybe the long now foundation will) and even if Bitcoin goes to zero, I think there will be some die hard true believers to keep running miners even past the built in 2140 expiration date.
Not all of the community is OK with this, lots of folks are strongly against OSI's bullshit OSAID for example. Really it should have been more like the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning Policy, just like last time when the OSI used the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) to create the Open Source Definition (OSD).
reply