3 ms·

Llama 2 is open source-ish. Weights are freely available and can be commercially used, but only if you have less than 700m users and agree to some "don't do nau

Llama 2 is open source-ish. Weights are freely available and can be commercially used, but only if you have less than 700m users and agree to some "don't do naughty things" terms.

supermatt 3y ago
If the JSON license isn't considered open, due to requiring that "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", then I don't see how tacking an additional financial threshold onto it makes it more open. I don't think meta even released the training dataset, so you cant even replicate it (should you have the funds to do so). There are other LLMs that don't have such restrictions, and publish their training data.
satvikpendem 3y ago
There is no open source-ish. It either protects the fundamental freedoms or it...doesn't.
- pastage 3y ago
  Sure there is, BSD is bad because xyz, GPL is bad because zyx. That said Llama restrictions are rather harsh and you are not allowed to improve other models with it. So no freedom there just some ok beer.
- jmiskovic 3y ago
  Open source is both a colloquial term for available/modifiable/distributable code (like Llama2), and a strict OSI-approved list of licenses. I'd say opensource-ish is a great fit here. Edit: this is in fact fairly interesting discussion because LLM is a new breed of digital products. Meta's terms are practical for limiting the usage for commercial applications, and they are designed to protect the general population. It's not the worn out "protecting us from ourselves", its actually preventing Llama users from harming non-users. Yes, we can be jaded and say it's about protecting the brand and dissociating from bad actors. My point is that it's hard to apply usual arguments for open source and freedom of computing, when you're defending rights of people who want to harm other people.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
keyle 3y ago
"open source-ish" sounds like the perfect way to massively profitable future litigations. Also "don't do naughty things", is there a chart for that? How is that defined, is it part of the non-existing license?
- yreg 3y ago
  > How is that defined, is it part of the non-existing license? What do you mean? https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE
jmiskovic 3y ago
Nope. It's limited by 700m monthly-active users at the time Llama2 was released, a weird catch clause for a handful of Meta competitor companies. The license doesn't satisfy OSS requirements, but it is quite reasonable. https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/use-policy/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/use-policy/

Llama 2 is open source-ish. Weights are freely available and can be commercially used, but only if you have less than 700m users and agree to some "don't do naughty things" terms.

supermatt 3y ago

If the JSON license isn't considered open, due to requiring that "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", then I don't see how tacking an additional financial threshold onto it makes it more open. I don't think meta even released the training dataset, so you cant even replicate it (should you have the funds to do so). There are other LLMs that don't have such restrictions, and publish their training data.

satvikpendem 3y ago

There is no open source-ish. It either protects the fundamental freedoms or it...doesn't.

pastage 3y ago
Sure there is, BSD is bad because xyz, GPL is bad because zyx. That said Llama restrictions are rather harsh and you are not allowed to improve other models with it. So no freedom there just some ok beer.
jmiskovic 3y ago
Open source is both a colloquial term for available/modifiable/distributable code (like Llama2), and a strict OSI-approved list of licenses. I'd say opensource-ish is a great fit here. Edit: this is in fact fairly interesting discussion because LLM is a new breed of digital products. Meta's terms are practical for limiting the usage for commercial applications, and they are designed to protect the general population. It's not the worn out "protecting us from ourselves", its actually preventing Llama users from harming non-users. Yes, we can be jaded and say it's about protecting the brand and dissociating from bad actors. My point is that it's hard to apply usual arguments for open source and freedom of computing, when you're defending rights of people who want to harm other people.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

keyle 3y ago

"open source-ish" sounds like the perfect way to massively profitable future litigations. Also "don't do naughty things", is there a chart for that? How is that defined, is it part of the non-existing license?

yreg 3y ago
> How is that defined, is it part of the non-existing license? What do you mean? https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE

jmiskovic 3y ago

Nope. It's limited by 700m monthly-active users at the time Llama2 was released, a weird catch clause for a handful of Meta competitor companies. The license doesn't satisfy OSS requirements, but it is quite reasonable. https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/use-policy/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/use-policy/