Hi, (I’m Alek from Open Future Foundation, I largely lurk here, so I want to say “Hi everyone!” first).
Jan, you’re right that the RAIL license does not meet any FOSS definitions. But its authors, in their white paper, position this license not just as “responsible” but also “open”. And project like RAIL or BLOOM, connected with the HuggingFace company, aim to define a standard that fits the idea of responsible sharing. Looking in more detail, the behavioural use limitations in RAIL are ones that could probably be endorsed by Wikimedia, based on its Code of Conduct and other community norms. My point is that it would be good to explore to what extent “openish” AI stacks can be a good fit for Wikimedia. I follow the conversation around open/responsible AI licensing and understand the need to not “dilute" FOSS licensing. But also appreciate that AI researchers are actively setting a standard that they think is right for AI. I think that their work should not be dismissed just because it’s not using one of the canonical open licenses. BY the way, there will probably be, anytime soon, an LLM that is available under a “traditional” FOSS license. But for me that’s even more so a reason to consider different options, and be able to make an informed decision. Best, Alek -- Director of Strategy, Open Future | openfuture.eu | +48 889 660 444 At Open Future, we tackle the Paradox of Open: paradox.openfuture.eu/ > On 28 Mar 2023, at 20:30, Jan Ainali <j...@aina.li> wrote: > > Den tis 28 mars 2023 kl 12:08 skrev Lauren Worden <laurenworde...@gmail.com > <mailto:laurenworde...@gmail.com>>: >> First, the Foundation should host a fork of BLOOM [ >> https://huggingface.co/bigscience/bloom ], which if I remember correctly was >> described by the Foundation's Machine Learning Director Chris Albon as the >> only LLM at the scale of GPT-3 adhering to the movement's FOSS criteria. > > No, BLOOM is not FOSS by any means. > It fails freedom 0 of the four freedoms from the Free Software Foundation, > and it is not recognized as an open source license by the Open Source > Institute (and will not be as it fails requirement 6 of the open source > definition). > So that model, any other using the RAIL license, is a dead end. > > /Jan > >  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >  https://opensource.org/osd/ > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://email@example.com/message/DW4TRBMJLO4I7MSIUJOHZLH6M2B7CJL5/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://email@example.com/message/IWQ4XGPKMBUSZVZ5KOW3ZAT4OWPIUBZR/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org