7 ms·

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
Sure! An actual open source app would let me use it to contribute to another model. There's no "real open source", only open source (meets the open source definition) and not open source. The open source definition is here: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  Well I'm sorry but I don't recall ever subscribing to the (blatantly arbitrary) "official" open source definition (even though I can appreciate the initiative). I prefer the literal definition: The source is open. Which it is.
  - nailer 3y ago
    The open source definition is by the people that invented the term 'open source'. When you heard the term 'open source', it was because the OSI made the term 'open source' and defined it. You can use any other term you like: 'shared source', 'source available', 'fauxpen source' or whatever else.

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

Sure! An actual open source app would let me use it to contribute to another model. There's no "real open source", only open source (meets the open source definition) and not open source. The open source definition is here: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

jdthedisciple 3y ago
Well I'm sorry but I don't recall ever subscribing to the (blatantly arbitrary) "official" open source definition (even though I can appreciate the initiative). I prefer the literal definition: The source is open. Which it is.
- nailer 3y ago
  The open source definition is by the people that invented the term 'open source'. When you heard the term 'open source', it was because the OSI made the term 'open source' and defined it. You can use any other term you like: 'shared source', 'source available', 'fauxpen source' or whatever else.