3 ms·

> What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by th

> What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by the FOSS movement Meta has already called it's software open source. And it may be fair enough. > There is no way FOSS developers and FOSS users will switch to a phrase that you just made up ("hackable software") Phrases are usually made up by someone, but not one has to switch if they really don't want to.

commoner 3y ago
> Meta has already called it's software open source. And it may be fair enough. Llama 2 is not open source for two reasons. First and most importantly, the license restricts certain types of commercial use, while open source software preserves the user's freedom to use the software for any purpose. Second: > "Meta using the term ‘open source’ for this is positively misleading: There is no source to be seen, the training data is entirely undocumented, and beyond the glossy charts the technical documentation is really rather poor. We do not know why Meta is so intent on getting everyone into this model, but the history of this company’s choices does not inspire confidence. Users beware." https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-llm-not-open https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-llm-not-open