4 ms·

Another non-open source license. Getting better but don't let anyone tell you this is open source. http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-ope

by andy99 3y ago

Another non-open source license. Getting better but don't let anyone tell you this is open source. http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-open-source.html http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-op...

yieldcrv 3y ago
I’m not worried about the semantics if it is free and available for commercial use too I’m fine just calling “a license”
- andy99 3y ago
  It's disappointing that you're stuck using LLaMA at Meta's pleasure for their approved application. I was hoping they would show some leadership and release this under the same terms (Apache 2.0) as PyTorch and their other models, but they've chosen to go this route now which sets a horrible precedent. A future where you can only do what FAANG wants you to is pretty grim even if most of the restrictions sound benign for now. The real danger is that this will be "good enough" to stop people maintaining open alternatives like open-LLaMA. We need a GPL'd foundation model that's too good to ignore that other models can be based off of.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    yeah that would be great if people were motivated to do alternatives with similar efficacy and reach
gentleman11 3y ago
Agreed. When "free" means that you have to agree to terms that include "we can update these terms at any time at our discretion and you agree to those changes too," that's incredibly sketchy. Meta's business model is "the users are not the customer, they are data sources and things to manipulate," it's especially worrying. I don't understand the hype behind this. This whole offering is bait
- Spivak 3y ago
  That's always true of OSS too and just like OSS you can always use the version you have under the terms you got it. See: macOS using an ancient version of bash to avoid GPLv3, the Elastic to OpenSearch fiasco.
  - cosmojg 3y ago
    Only if its license is explicitly irrevocable. Llama 2's license is the opposite, explicitly detailing Meta's ability to revoke it at any time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
gentleman11 3y ago
On HN, I really expected better of people. Why does everybody think this is open source? Every third comments is about how it's open source, but it's not Does everyone also think OpenAI is open source? Or a non-profit? Does putting open in the name just mean you're going to love it?
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  > On HN, I really expected better of people. Why does everybody think this is open source? If you put five HN users in a room you will get at least a dozen definitions of "open source". >Does everyone also think OpenAI is open source? No one thinks that OpenAI is open source. > Or a non-profit? I think most people just assume that OpenAI is a for profit company (which it is). There is of course a non-profit foundation that is a majority shareholder in it. > Does putting open in the name just mean you're going to love it? Obviously not, since people here definitely see Meta as the good guy when compared to OpenAI.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Open Source is very subject to the true scotsman. Someone said on HN that just sticking all your source on Github with a permissive license isn’t true open source: it is about the community too!
    - subarctic 3y ago
      Ya, but they're wrong. Open Source is all about the license. EDIT: OK, I guess you need the actual source code, too. But once you have the source and an open source license, it's open source, whether it's on github or stored on a thumb drive, and no matter the size of the community around it. Although I guess you have a point about there being other things that are important... like you might say, Android isn't _really_ open source any more because of the way that Google has gradually made the whole ecosystem dependent on proprietary stuff like Google Play Services, and because of the fact that development happens behind closed doors at google, but technically AOSP is still open source.
- 3y ago
brucethemoose2 3y ago
Is a truly open source 2 trillion token model even possible? Even if Meta released this under Apache 2.0, there's the sticky question of the training data licenses.
- echelon 3y ago
  > Even if Meta released this under Apache 2.0, there's the sticky question of the training data licenses. You need to pay Disney royalties out of every paycheck because you watched Toy Story and Star Wars. These movies updated your own neural weights.
  - moonchrome 3y ago
    If you recreated those works from memory yeah you would be subject to copyright. There's a whole set of rules around fair use and derivative work.
    - echelon 3y ago
      Where is AI guilty of reproducing Star Wars verbatim, then? If the AI has seen Star Wars and that's enough to find it liable, then you should be too. If the AI has seen Star Wars to understand science fiction and modern culture, then it's no different from us or any other artist.
      - brucethemoose2 3y ago
        If a human recites large chunks of Star Wars verbatim, and then sells that copy as a service, thats certainly enough to find the person liable. YouTube zaps videos that contain too much copyrighted stuff for this very reason.
        echelon 3y ago
        My point is that nobody is using AI to wholesale reproduce works and that training on copyrighted works isn't violating anyone's copyright.
smashah 3y ago
We should also be mad about Meta (a now $800bn company) sending C&D legal threats and bullying OSS devs into no longer being able to maintain their projects

by andy99 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

I’m not worried about the semantics if it is free and available for commercial use too I’m fine just calling “a license”

andy99 3y ago
It's disappointing that you're stuck using LLaMA at Meta's pleasure for their approved application. I was hoping they would show some leadership and release this under the same terms (Apache 2.0) as PyTorch and their other models, but they've chosen to go this route now which sets a horrible precedent. A future where you can only do what FAANG wants you to is pretty grim even if most of the restrictions sound benign for now. The real danger is that this will be "good enough" to stop people maintaining open alternatives like open-LLaMA. We need a GPL'd foundation model that's too good to ignore that other models can be based off of.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  yeah that would be great if people were motivated to do alternatives with similar efficacy and reach

gentleman11 3y ago

Agreed. When "free" means that you have to agree to terms that include "we can update these terms at any time at our discretion and you agree to those changes too," that's incredibly sketchy. Meta's business model is "the users are not the customer, they are data sources and things to manipulate," it's especially worrying. I don't understand the hype behind this. This whole offering is bait

Spivak 3y ago
That's always true of OSS too and just like OSS you can always use the version you have under the terms you got it. See: macOS using an ancient version of bash to avoid GPLv3, the Elastic to OpenSearch fiasco.
- cosmojg 3y ago
  Only if its license is explicitly irrevocable. Llama 2's license is the opposite, explicitly detailing Meta's ability to revoke it at any time.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

gentleman11 3y ago

On HN, I really expected better of people. Why does everybody think this is open source? Every third comments is about how it's open source, but it's not Does everyone also think OpenAI is open source? Or a non-profit? Does putting open in the name just mean you're going to love it?

sebzim4500 3y ago
> On HN, I really expected better of people. Why does everybody think this is open source? If you put five HN users in a room you will get at least a dozen definitions of "open source". >Does everyone also think OpenAI is open source? No one thinks that OpenAI is open source. > Or a non-profit? I think most people just assume that OpenAI is a for profit company (which it is). There is of course a non-profit foundation that is a majority shareholder in it. > Does putting open in the name just mean you're going to love it? Obviously not, since people here definitely see Meta as the good guy when compared to OpenAI.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Open Source is very subject to the true scotsman. Someone said on HN that just sticking all your source on Github with a permissive license isn’t true open source: it is about the community too!
  - subarctic 3y ago
    Ya, but they're wrong. Open Source is all about the license. EDIT: OK, I guess you need the actual source code, too. But once you have the source and an open source license, it's open source, whether it's on github or stored on a thumb drive, and no matter the size of the community around it. Although I guess you have a point about there being other things that are important... like you might say, Android isn't _really_ open source any more because of the way that Google has gradually made the whole ecosystem dependent on proprietary stuff like Google Play Services, and because of the fact that development happens behind closed doors at google, but technically AOSP is still open source.
3y ago

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Is a truly open source 2 trillion token model even possible? Even if Meta released this under Apache 2.0, there's the sticky question of the training data licenses.

echelon 3y ago
> Even if Meta released this under Apache 2.0, there's the sticky question of the training data licenses. You need to pay Disney royalties out of every paycheck because you watched Toy Story and Star Wars. These movies updated your own neural weights.
- moonchrome 3y ago
  If you recreated those works from memory yeah you would be subject to copyright. There's a whole set of rules around fair use and derivative work.
  - echelon 3y ago
    Where is AI guilty of reproducing Star Wars verbatim, then? If the AI has seen Star Wars and that's enough to find it liable, then you should be too. If the AI has seen Star Wars to understand science fiction and modern culture, then it's no different from us or any other artist.
    - brucethemoose2 3y ago
      If a human recites large chunks of Star Wars verbatim, and then sells that copy as a service, thats certainly enough to find the person liable. YouTube zaps videos that contain too much copyrighted stuff for this very reason.
      - echelon 3y ago
        My point is that nobody is using AI to wholesale reproduce works and that training on copyrighted works isn't violating anyone's copyright.

smashah 3y ago

We should also be mad about Meta (a now $800bn company) sending C&D legal threats and bullying OSS devs into no longer being able to maintain their projects