5 ms·

They didn't. It's not open source.

by seba_dos1 3y ago

throwaway29812 3y ago
can you expand on that?
- onedognight 3y ago
  It’s open but not open source. Getting Llama is like getting a binary executable. You don’t get the source (training data / model / code), so you can’t make changes and recompile, but you can use it and fine tune.
  - jraph 3y ago
    What does open mean? I'm not sure we really have a widely shared, common definition of this, contrary to open source. > You don’t get the source You do IIUC. But your can't use it for all purposes (like serving 1B users), which is what makes it non open source.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  Its license is quite obviously not matching the definition of Open Source: > v. You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof). > 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. > Prohibited Uses: <a whole page full of text>
- andy99 3y ago
  The license has a bunch of terms and restrictions that make it incompatible with accepted definitions of open source software. LLaMA2 isn't "Open Source" - and why it doesn't matter https://www.alessiofanelli.com/blog/llama2-isnt-open-source https://www.alessiofanelli.com/blog/llama2-isnt-open-source Meta can call Llama open source as much as it likes, but that doesn't mean it is https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/llama_is_not_open_source/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/llama_is_not_open_sou... Software licenses masquerading as open source (I wrote that one) http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-open-source.html http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-op... There have been lots of other posts on here about this too.
- mindcrime 3y ago
  It's closer to "shared source" or "source available". The license is not compliant with the OSD[1] which is the de-facto (but not de jure, for you pedants out there) definition of "Open Source" in common usage. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - jraph 3y ago
    > but not de jure, for you pedants out there This means that the term "open source" is not legally defined (and not recognized by lawyer / judges) [and the OSD], right?
    - mindcrime 3y ago
      Yes, "de jure" more or less translates to "by law", and "de facto" is something like "by practice" or "by convention". So the Open Source Initiative folks have no legal basis to enforce use of their definition, but in practice it's so widely used and acknowledged that for all practical purposes it is the definition.
- _Parfait_ 3y ago
  Basically under the actual terms of what open source is there can be no limits to particular users. Meta, in order to protect their competitive market share has said explicitly in Paragraph Two of their licensing 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. -- Doing so, technically, takes the license out of the category of “Open Source.” Sources: Open Source Initiate Argument https://blog.opensource.org/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source/ https://blog.opensource.org/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... Llama Terms https://ai.meta.com/resources/models-and-libraries/llama-downloads/ https://ai.meta.com/resources/models-and-libraries/llama-dow...
  - wolpoli 3y ago
    I wonder who they are targeting with this restriction on 700 million MAU.
    - maattp 3y ago
      Snapchat
    - _Parfait_ 3y ago
      The big boys, MS & Big G
stale2002 3y ago
We don't have to play dumb. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what the article means, when it says that Llama was open sourced. This obviously means that the weights were released, and everyone knows this, regardless of any pedantic definition of what "open source" means.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  Calling Llama 2 "open source" is obviously a misleading marketing tactic to capitalize on positive connotations of the term, while in reality it's nowhere even close to being open source. This has nothing to do with any kind of pedantry, "open source" is a specific term with specific meaning, and "releasing the weights" is completely orthogonal to it being open source or not.
  - andy99 3y ago
    A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. I've been very vocal about how the LLaMAs as well as other models like those released under RAIL licenses are not open source. But the truth is very few people care and attitudes like the one above are common. What needs to happen is for a strong, and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms. That plus continued advocacy in the face of people dismissing pedantic distinctions as irrelevant.
    - nomel 3y ago
      > and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms I keep seeing this, but I can't understand how it would work. Bored nerds will volunteer their time to open source, with little return. That's why I did it. Generally, nobody will volunteer their money to open source. This is unfortunate, and a huge problem. Training neural nets requires the money. Where does it come from?
      - andy99 3y ago
        I'm not saying it's a solved problem though there are already initiatives like AI Horde that are doing volunteer distributed inference (it it looks like now fine-tuning) on GPUs https://stablehorde.net/ https://stablehorde.net/ Plus it can be a strategic choice for institutions and companies, just like Linux is for example.
topynate 3y ago
They can keep pretending it's an open source licence, and I'll keep pretending to respect their copyright in algorithmically generated weights.
mrtranscendence 3y ago
Definitions are determined by actual usage. If people call Llama 2’s license open source then ipso facto it’s open source.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  There's about 25 years of actual usage that clearly states otherwise. We can give your idea some weight after 25 years of people consistently calling Llama 2 open source, effectively diluting the term to mean nothing in the process. Meanwhile it's just as if I told you that the sky is green.
  - mrtranscendence 3y ago
    There’s a history of actual usage among some subsets of people, not for everyone. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter if there’s history as long as usage is in fact changing. “Literally” meant one thing much longer than it has been a superlative.
    - seba_dos1 3y ago
      I said above that the sky is green, just like people from Meta said that Llama 2 is open source. See! Actual usage! The sky is now green. The only reason people say that Llama 2 is open source is because they have been misled, not because the definition is changing. There's a lot of goodwill around the term "open source" because of its actual meaning, so it will always be tempting to abuse it for your own benefit, as not everyone bothers to check whether your claims are actually true.

They didn't. It's not open source.

throwaway29812 3y ago

can you expand on that?

onedognight 3y ago
It’s open but not open source. Getting Llama is like getting a binary executable. You don’t get the source (training data / model / code), so you can’t make changes and recompile, but you can use it and fine tune.
- jraph 3y ago
  What does open mean? I'm not sure we really have a widely shared, common definition of this, contrary to open source. > You don’t get the source You do IIUC. But your can't use it for all purposes (like serving 1B users), which is what makes it non open source.
seba_dos1 3y ago
Its license is quite obviously not matching the definition of Open Source: > v. You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof). > 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. > Prohibited Uses: <a whole page full of text>
andy99 3y ago
The license has a bunch of terms and restrictions that make it incompatible with accepted definitions of open source software. LLaMA2 isn't "Open Source" - and why it doesn't matter https://www.alessiofanelli.com/blog/llama2-isnt-open-source https://www.alessiofanelli.com/blog/llama2-isnt-open-source Meta can call Llama open source as much as it likes, but that doesn't mean it is https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/llama_is_not_open_source/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/llama_is_not_open_sou... Software licenses masquerading as open source (I wrote that one) http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-open-source.html http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-op... There have been lots of other posts on here about this too.
mindcrime 3y ago
It's closer to "shared source" or "source available". The license is not compliant with the OSD[1] which is the de-facto (but not de jure, for you pedants out there) definition of "Open Source" in common usage. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- jraph 3y ago
  > but not de jure, for you pedants out there This means that the term "open source" is not legally defined (and not recognized by lawyer / judges) [and the OSD], right?
  - mindcrime 3y ago
    Yes, "de jure" more or less translates to "by law", and "de facto" is something like "by practice" or "by convention". So the Open Source Initiative folks have no legal basis to enforce use of their definition, but in practice it's so widely used and acknowledged that for all practical purposes it is the definition.
_Parfait_ 3y ago
Basically under the actual terms of what open source is there can be no limits to particular users. Meta, in order to protect their competitive market share has said explicitly in Paragraph Two of their licensing 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. -- Doing so, technically, takes the license out of the category of “Open Source.” Sources: Open Source Initiate Argument https://blog.opensource.org/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source/ https://blog.opensource.org/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... Llama Terms https://ai.meta.com/resources/models-and-libraries/llama-downloads/ https://ai.meta.com/resources/models-and-libraries/llama-dow...
- wolpoli 3y ago
  I wonder who they are targeting with this restriction on 700 million MAU.
  - maattp 3y ago
    Snapchat
  - _Parfait_ 3y ago
    The big boys, MS & Big G

stale2002 3y ago

We don't have to play dumb. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what the article means, when it says that Llama was open sourced. This obviously means that the weights were released, and everyone knows this, regardless of any pedantic definition of what "open source" means.

seba_dos1 3y ago
Calling Llama 2 "open source" is obviously a misleading marketing tactic to capitalize on positive connotations of the term, while in reality it's nowhere even close to being open source. This has nothing to do with any kind of pedantry, "open source" is a specific term with specific meaning, and "releasing the weights" is completely orthogonal to it being open source or not.
- andy99 3y ago
  A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. I've been very vocal about how the LLaMAs as well as other models like those released under RAIL licenses are not open source. But the truth is very few people care and attitudes like the one above are common. What needs to happen is for a strong, and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms. That plus continued advocacy in the face of people dismissing pedantic distinctions as irrelevant.
  - nomel 3y ago
    > and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms I keep seeing this, but I can't understand how it would work. Bored nerds will volunteer their time to open source, with little return. That's why I did it. Generally, nobody will volunteer their money to open source. This is unfortunate, and a huge problem. Training neural nets requires the money. Where does it come from?
    - andy99 3y ago
      I'm not saying it's a solved problem though there are already initiatives like AI Horde that are doing volunteer distributed inference (it it looks like now fine-tuning) on GPUs https://stablehorde.net/ https://stablehorde.net/ Plus it can be a strategic choice for institutions and companies, just like Linux is for example.

topynate 3y ago

They can keep pretending it's an open source licence, and I'll keep pretending to respect their copyright in algorithmically generated weights.

mrtranscendence 3y ago

Definitions are determined by actual usage. If people call Llama 2’s license open source then ipso facto it’s open source.

seba_dos1 3y ago
There's about 25 years of actual usage that clearly states otherwise. We can give your idea some weight after 25 years of people consistently calling Llama 2 open source, effectively diluting the term to mean nothing in the process. Meanwhile it's just as if I told you that the sky is green.
- mrtranscendence 3y ago
  There’s a history of actual usage among some subsets of people, not for everyone. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter if there’s history as long as usage is in fact changing. “Literally” meant one thing much longer than it has been a superlative.
  - seba_dos1 3y ago
    I said above that the sky is green, just like people from Meta said that Llama 2 is open source. See! Actual usage! The sky is now green. The only reason people say that Llama 2 is open source is because they have been misled, not because the definition is changing. There's a lot of goodwill around the term "open source" because of its actual meaning, so it will always be tempting to abuse it for your own benefit, as not everyone bothers to check whether your claims are actually true.