3 ms·
Update: the OSI has also clarified that Llama 2 is not open source: https://twitter.com/opensourceorg/status/1681363091009986560 https://twitter.com/opensource
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 agoQuite 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 agoIt may very well be reasonable, but it's not "open source".