Dumb question: what should open-source mean in the context of something like this? Open access to the training data and training pipeline as well?
Just because the model weights are not really "source" (either as a matter of intuition or for example following the OSI "preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program" definition).
They've just started to (in response to lawsuits, it must be noted) and in the meantime, they're simultaneously claiming that (1) what they're doing is fair use (a.k.a. fair dealing) and (2) preparing for the day when courts confirm that it isn't.
Data, as in facts, as in the frequency of one word in relation to another.
"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed..." FROM: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
It's not a question of if, rather when the cat gets out of the bag and the legal battle starts. The problem is that all the copyright applies to the expression not the factual information it expresses (in this case word relations). Now "how math works" and "the language of the law" are going to make for an interesting court case. I suspect that math wins here but it depends on what judge gets it and how high it goes.
https://opensource.org/blog/open-source-ai-definition-weekly...