3 ms·

> All you have to do is ask. That makes it literally not open source. Can I redistribute it freely? I don't think so, I might be wrong. If not, it's not open s

by kaoD 4y ago

> All you have to do is ask. That makes it literally not open source. Can I redistribute it freely? I don't think so, I might be wrong. If not, it's not open source. > and you still complain? But I don't complain about Facebook releasing it in whichever terms they want. I complain that people call it open source when it clearly isn't. > The level of entitlement is off the charts… How is pointing that it's not open source entitlement?

p1esk 4y ago
Again, I have to point you to the repo code. Here’s the licence: https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE The model code is literally open source. Provided and licensed.
- throwaway1851 4y ago
  The disconnect here is that the model code isn’t the important part. If you read the paper, LLaMA is all about the training data and the training process (which required a ”massive quantity” of compute, to quote the paper). Without releasing the significant part of their work, what are they really releasing?
  - p1esk 4y ago
    Exactly - massive amount of compute required to reproduce the training process, and that’s why almost no one is going to try training this model from scratch. Most people will use this model as is, and a small number of people will finetune it on their own data - those people most likely already have their own training scripts, because finetuning is much easier than training from scratch and requires different hyper parameters. I don’t know why they haven’t released the training code - I agree it would be nice if they did - but the important thing here is they created something valuable, open sourced it, and even provided model weights - for free. Let’s appreciate it. Even if they did publish their training code - that’s not enough to train the model. You also need their dataset. Would you still claim “the model is not open source” because the dataset is not available? Bottom line: the model has been open sourced. The training code hasn’t - and isn’t needed by most users of this model.
    - kaoD 4y ago
      > You also need their dataset. With the training code you can fine tune the model with your own dataset, which exactly fits FSF's freedom 1.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rnd0 4y ago
>I might be wrong. If not, it's not open source. It isn't "Free Software" if it doesn't allow for the four freedoms -including the right to modify and redistribute your modifications. As a term, "open source" is ambiguous to almost having almost no actual meaning at all. But "Free Software" has a concrete meaning and if you can't redistribute something then it is not "Free Software". Hope that helps. Edit to add a citation: https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/ https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/
- kaoD 4y ago
  I know what free software is. I meant the checkpoint might be redistributable after you ask for it (but I doubt so). Hard to tell since you have to ask to get it, but I'm pretty sure you'll get it with a pretty restrictive license. Open Source has a clear and specific definition BTW: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

by kaoD 4y ago

p1esk 4y ago

Again, I have to point you to the repo code. Here’s the licence: https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE The model code is literally open source. Provided and licensed.

throwaway1851 4y ago
The disconnect here is that the model code isn’t the important part. If you read the paper, LLaMA is all about the training data and the training process (which required a ”massive quantity” of compute, to quote the paper). Without releasing the significant part of their work, what are they really releasing?
- p1esk 4y ago
  Exactly - massive amount of compute required to reproduce the training process, and that’s why almost no one is going to try training this model from scratch. Most people will use this model as is, and a small number of people will finetune it on their own data - those people most likely already have their own training scripts, because finetuning is much easier than training from scratch and requires different hyper parameters. I don’t know why they haven’t released the training code - I agree it would be nice if they did - but the important thing here is they created something valuable, open sourced it, and even provided model weights - for free. Let’s appreciate it. Even if they did publish their training code - that’s not enough to train the model. You also need their dataset. Would you still claim “the model is not open source” because the dataset is not available? Bottom line: the model has been open sourced. The training code hasn’t - and isn’t needed by most users of this model.
  - kaoD 4y ago
    > You also need their dataset. With the training code you can fine tune the model with your own dataset, which exactly fits FSF's freedom 1.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rnd0 4y ago

>I might be wrong. If not, it's not open source. It isn't "Free Software" if it doesn't allow for the four freedoms -including the right to modify and redistribute your modifications. As a term, "open source" is ambiguous to almost having almost no actual meaning at all. But "Free Software" has a concrete meaning and if you can't redistribute something then it is not "Free Software". Hope that helps. Edit to add a citation: https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/ https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/

kaoD 4y ago
I know what free software is. I meant the checkpoint might be redistributable after you ask for it (but I doubt so). Hard to tell since you have to ask to get it, but I'm pretty sure you'll get it with a pretty restrictive license. Open Source has a clear and specific definition BTW: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/