Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA? This is downgraded to CC-BY?

#2
by Lauler - opened

The Apertus tech report states that you exclude datasets licensed under restrictive or non-permissive licenses (such as SA licenses) in post-training.

Yet you use both clean-wikipedia, multilingual wikipedia Q&A, and Romansh Wikipedia in the training of the model (including post-training). And here, in this dataset, you release data containing Romansh wikipedia texts (CC-BY-SA) under a CC-BY license.

Can you explain how Apertus can claim to have excluded SA-licensed materials, while simultaneously including CC-BY-SA-licensed Wikipedia content in its post-training?

Lauler changed discussion title from Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA? This is CC-BY? to Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA? This is downgraded to CC-BY?

Thank you very much for your questions.

Post-training data: The Romansh post-training dataset does not contain Wikipedia-derived content. Therefore, our tech report's claim about excluding SA licenses of Romansh data during the post-training phase remains accurate.

Pre-training data: The Romansh pre-training dataset did not actually make it into the final Apertus 1 model.

Dataset licensing: You are absolutely right about the license tags on this repository. The Wikipedia portions remain strictly under CC-BY-SA, while the other non-Wikipedia subsets are CC-BY. We are updating the dataset metadata and README for the Romansh dataset today to clearly separate and accurately reflect these licenses. Thanks for catching this!

Sign up or log in to comment