3 ms·

Llama 2 is not open source

32 points by nailer 3y ago

nailer 3y ago
Update: the OSI has also clarified that Llama 2 is not open source: https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 Original: See > 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights. Which violates the open source definition.
- matt_oriordan 3y ago
  Quite frankly whilst I have no love for Meta, if they are willing to spend stupendous amounts of money to open source their AI models, yet prevent use of this by companies who reach 700 million MAUs from benefiting from this investment, then they’re doing a service to the community and ultimately finding a way to commercialise their investment. Tldr; they’ve invested a lot of money and time to help the community benefit from AI. If you then go onto build a billion dollar business servicing near one a billion users, then they expect a thank you in currency. How is that not reasonable?
  - seba_dos1 3y ago
    It may very well be reasonable, but it's not "open source".
seba_dos1 3y ago
Of course it's not. It's baffling that such a description ever appeared in the public discourse.
russdpale 3y ago
Easy to assume to the worst considering the company, and those assumptions are probably correct.
jdthedisciple 3y ago
So it's open source for all intends and purposes. Not sure why some people get off of this hair-splitting.
- nailer 3y ago
  Open source is a real term with a precise definition and no, not all intents and purposes required by the open source definition are allowed by the license.
  - jdthedisciple 3y ago
    Alright then do tell me: How exactly is it any different from "real Open Source" to you personally and 99% of developers ?
    - kreetx 3y ago
      In the sense that if I worked for a big company, I have reasons to not look into Llama as a using it for work would have obstacles.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      The licensing terms say you're not allowed to use this to improve your own LLM, and that you need to get a license from Facebook if you get more than 700 million users. While that's a big number, those are still restrictions on how I can use the software. The OSI, which stands for Open Source Initiative, is a public charity organization dedicated to Open Source, https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/, has explicitly stated (on Twitter) that this license is not Open Source because of those restrictions. https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560
    - arcatech 3y ago
      That doesn’t matter and isn’t the point. This doesn’t match the definition of open source. That’s a fact.
    - nailer 3y ago
nailer 3y ago
dang this is flagged unnecessarily. Can you please investigate?

32 points by nailer 3y ago

Update: the OSI has also clarified that Llama 2 is not open source: https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 Original: See > 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights. Which violates the open source definition.

matt_oriordan 3y ago
Quite frankly whilst I have no love for Meta, if they are willing to spend stupendous amounts of money to open source their AI models, yet prevent use of this by companies who reach 700 million MAUs from benefiting from this investment, then they’re doing a service to the community and ultimately finding a way to commercialise their investment. Tldr; they’ve invested a lot of money and time to help the community benefit from AI. If you then go onto build a billion dollar business servicing near one a billion users, then they expect a thank you in currency. How is that not reasonable?
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  It may very well be reasonable, but it's not "open source".

seba_dos1 3y ago

Of course it's not. It's baffling that such a description ever appeared in the public discourse.

russdpale 3y ago

Easy to assume to the worst considering the company, and those assumptions are probably correct.

jdthedisciple 3y ago

So it's open source for all intends and purposes. Not sure why some people get off of this hair-splitting.

nailer 3y ago
Open source is a real term with a precise definition and no, not all intents and purposes required by the open source definition are allowed by the license.
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  Alright then do tell me: How exactly is it any different from "real Open Source" to you personally and 99% of developers ?
  - kreetx 3y ago
    In the sense that if I worked for a big company, I have reasons to not look into Llama as a using it for work would have obstacles.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    The licensing terms say you're not allowed to use this to improve your own LLM, and that you need to get a license from Facebook if you get more than 700 million users. While that's a big number, those are still restrictions on how I can use the software. The OSI, which stands for Open Source Initiative, is a public charity organization dedicated to Open Source, https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/, has explicitly stated (on Twitter) that this license is not Open Source because of those restrictions. https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560
  - arcatech 3y ago
    That doesn’t matter and isn’t the point. This doesn’t match the definition of open source. That’s a fact.
  - nailer 3y ago

nailer 3y ago

dang this is flagged unnecessarily. Can you please investigate?