4 ms·

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

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