Crowdsourcing Identification of License Violations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free and open source software (FOSS) has created a large pool of source codes that can be easily copied to create new applications. However, a copy should preserve copyright notice and license of the original file unless the license explicitly permits such a change. Through software evolution, it is challenging to keep original licenses or choose proper licenses. As a result, there are many potential license violations. Despite the fact that violations can have high impact on protecting copyright, identification of violations is highly complex. It relies on manual inspections by experts. However, such inspection cannot be scaled up with open source software released daily worldwide. To make this process scalable, we propose the following two methods: use machine-based algorithms to narrow down the potential violations; and guide non-experts to manually inspect violations. Using the first method, we found 219 projects (76.6%) with potential violations. Using the second method, we show that the accuracy of crowds is comparable to that of experts. Our techniques might help developers identify potential violations, understand the causes, and resolve these violations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it