AI 模型的开源定义需要改变
许可证 开源 AI
![](/data/attachment/album/202311/02/215953yyz45l5l3v4fzqyv.jpg)



> 
> 你认为开源许可证应当进行演变吗？
> 
> 
> 


2023 年，我们以**人工智能（AI）崭露头角**开始了新的一年，同时也见证了众多公司全力以赴投身于 AI。


比如说 **Mozilla**，它在 2023 年初制定了 [开源 AI 计划](https://news.itsfoss.com/mozilla-open-source-ai/)，以开发各种 AI 驱动的解决方案。而 **HuggingChat** 也成为了第一个推出 ChatGPT [开源替代品](https://news.itsfoss.com/huggingchat-chatgpt/) 的组织。


即便是 Meta，他们也不例外。他们自家的 <ruby> 大型语言模型 <rt>  Large Language Model </rt></ruby>（LLM）[Llama 2](https://ai.meta.com/llama/) 项目在这一年都颇受关注，几个月前他们甚至推出了一款新的 [ChatGPT 竞争对手](https://news.itsfoss.com/meta-open-source-chatgpt/)。


然而，也有很多人开始 [提出质疑](https://www.wired.com/story/the-myth-of-open-source-ai/)，主张 **Meta 的 Llama 2 模型并不像人们期望的那样开放**，查看它的开源许可证似乎更是印证了这个观点。


该许可证 **不允许拥有超过 7 亿日活跃用户的服务使用 Llama 2**，同样的，**它也不能被用于训练其他的语言模型**。


这也就意味着 Meta 对于 Llama 2 的许可证 **未能满足** <ruby> 开源倡议组织 <rt>  Open Source Initiative </rt></ruby>（OSI）的 <ruby> <a href="https://opensource.org/osd/">  开源定义 </a> <rt>  Open Source Definition </rt></ruby>（OSD）所列出的 **全部要求**。


人们可以争辩，像 [EleutherAI](https://www.eleuther.ai/) 和 [Falcon 40B](https://www.tii.ae/news/uaes-technology-innovation-institute-launches-open-source-falcon-40b-large-language-model) 这样的机构就做出了很好的示范，展示了如何适当地处理 AI 的开源许可。


然而，Meta 对此的看法却截然不同。


### 开源许可需要进化


在与 [The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/30/23935587/meta-generative-ai-models-open-source) 的交谈中，Meta 人工智能研究副总裁 [Joëlle Pineau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%ABlle_Pineau) 为他们的立场进行了辩解。


她说，我们 **需要在信息共享的益处和可能对 Meta 商业造成的潜在成本之间寻找平衡**。


这种对开源的态度让他们的研究人员能够更加专注地处理 AI 项目。她还补充说：



> 
> 开放的方式从内部改变了我们的科研方法，它促使我们不发布任何不安全的东西，并在一开始就负起责任。
> 
> 
> 


Joëlle 希望他们的生成型 AI 模型能够和他们过去的 [PyTorch](https://pytorch.org/) 项目一样受到热捧。


但是，**问题在于现有的许可证机制**。她又补充说，这些许可证并不是设计来处理那些需要利用大量多源数据的软件。


这反过来**为开发者和用户提供了有限责任**，以及，**对版权侵犯的有限赔偿**（解释为：保护）。


此外，她还指出：



> 
> AI 模型与软件不同，涉及的风险更大，因此我认为我们应该对当前用户许可证进行改变，以更好地适应 AI 模型。
> 
> 
> 但我并不是一名律师，所以我在此问题上听从他们的意见。
> 
> 
> 


我赞同她的观点，我们需要更新现有的许可方案，使之更好地适应 AI 模型，以及其他相关事务。


显而易见，**OSI 正在努力进行此事**。OSI 的执行董事 [Stefano Maffulli](https://twitter.com/smaffulli) 向 The Verge 透露，他们了解到 **当前的 OSI 批准的许可证无法满足人工智能模型的需求**。


他们正在商讨如何与 AI 开发者合作，以提供一个 “**透明、无许可但安全**” 的模型访问。


他还补充说：



> 
> 我们肯定需要重新思考许可证的方式，以解决 AI 模型中版权和授权的真正限制，同时仍遵循开源社区的一些原则。
> 
> 
> 


无论未来如何，显然，**开源标准必须推动其演化，以适应新的以及即将出现的技术** ，而此类问题不仅仅局限于 AI。


对于未来几年开源许可的变革，我充满期待。


? 对于你来说呢？你认为对于陈旧的开源标准，我们需要进行什么样的改变？


*（题图：MJ/e8bae5f6-606b-47db-aaea-c992c0bd143e）*




---


via: <https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-definition-ai/>


作者：[Sourav Rudra](https://news.itsfoss.com/author/sourav/) 选题：[lujun9972](https://github.com/lujun9972) 译者：[ChatGPT](https://linux.cn/lctt/ChatGPT) 校对：[wxy](https://github.com/wxy)


本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创编译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出


OK
![](/assets/images/pikapods-banner-v3.webp)


![](/assets/images/pikapods-banner-v3.webp)

We started the year 2023 with **Artificial Intelligence (AI) being one of the biggest catches**, we also saw many companies going all in into this.

Take for instance **Mozilla**, who entered 2023 with [plans to work on open-source AI](https://news.itsfoss.com/mozilla-open-source-ai/) to develop various types of AI-powered solutions, or even **HuggingChat**, the [first open source alternative to ChatGPT](https://news.itsfoss.com/huggingchat-chatgpt/).

Even Meta is no stranger to that, they have their [ Llama 2](https://ai.meta.com/llama/?ref=news.itsfoss.com) large language model (LLM) that has been making waves all year round, they even announced a

**a few months back.**

**ChatGPT contender**However, many have [raised questions](https://www.wired.com/story/the-myth-of-open-source-ai/?ref=news.itsfoss.com) that **Meta's Llama 2 is not as open as one would expect**, and that does seem the case when one looks at its open-source license.

The license **doesn't allow using Llama 2 for services that have over 700 million daily users**, and it also **cannot be used to train other language models**.

This also means that Meta's license for **Llama 2 doesn't meet all the requirements of the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) Open Source Definition**.

One can argue that open-source licenses implemented by the likes of [EleutherAI](https://www.eleuther.ai/?ref=news.itsfoss.com) and [Falcon 40B](https://www.tii.ae/news/uaes-technology-innovation-institute-launches-open-source-falcon-40b-large-language-model?ref=news.itsfoss.com) are a good example of how open source licensing should be handled for AI.

But, Meta has a different take on it.

![Follow It's FOSS on Google News](https://news.itsfoss.com/content/images/2023/04/Follow-us-on-Google-News.png)


![Follow It's FOSS on Google News](https://news.itsfoss.com/content/images/2023/04/Follow-us-on-Google-News.png)

## Open Source Licensing Needs to Evolve

In conversation with [The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/30/23935587/meta-generative-ai-models-open-source?ref=news.itsfoss.com), the VP for AI research over at Meta, [ Joëlle Pineau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%ABlle_Pineau?ref=news.itsfoss.com) defended their stand.

She says that there is **a need to balance between the benefits of information sharing** and the **potential costs that could be incurred to Meta's business**.

This approach to open source has allowed their researchers to take a more focused approach in handling their AI projects. She also adds:

Being open has internally changed how we approach research, and it drives us not to release anything that isn’t very safe and be responsible at the onset.

Joëlle also hopes that they can have the same level of enthusiasm with their generative AI models that they have seen in the past with their [ PyTorch](https://pytorch.org/?ref=news.itsfoss.com) initiative,

But, the **problem lies with current licensing schemes**. She adds that, these licenses were not meant to work with software that leverage large amounts of data from a multitude of sources.

This in turn gives **limited liability to both the users and the developers**, with **limited indemnity to copyright infringement** (read as: protection against).

Furthermore, she added that:

AI models are different from software because there are more risks involved, so I think we should evolve the current user licenses we have to fit AI models better.

But I’m not a lawyer, so I defer to them on this point.

I do agree with her on that, there is a need to update current licenses to better fit AI models, among other things.

And it appears that **the OSI are already on the job**. [ Stefano Maffulli](https://twitter.com/smaffulli?ref=news.itsfoss.com), the executive director of OSI, has told The Verge that they understand that the

**current OSI-approved licenses are not up to the job for AI models**.

They are in the process of reviewing how to work with AI developers to provide a “**transparent, permissionless, yet safe**” access to models.

He also added that:

We definitely have to rethink licenses in a way that addresses the real limitations of copyright and permissions in AI models while keeping many of the tenets of the open source community.

Regardless of what happens, it is clear that **open-source standards will have to evolve to accommodate new and emerging tech**, while not being just limited to AI.

I am looking forward to how the open-source licensing changes in the coming years.

*💬 What about you? Do you think that older open-source standards need to be updated?*

## More from It's FOSS...

- Support us by opting for
[It's FOSS Plus](https://itsfoss.com/#/portal/signup)membership. - Join our
[community forum](https://itsfoss.community/). - 📩 Stay updated with the latest on Linux and Open Source. Get our
[weekly Newsletter](https://itsfoss.com/newsletter/).