3 ms·

IMO this debate about what "open" means itself obfuscates the issue significantly. This is because if you just say "Well technically LLama 2 doesn't fit the tr

by stale2002 3y ago

IMO this debate about what "open" means itself obfuscates the issue significantly. This is because if you just say "Well technically LLama 2 doesn't fit the traditional definition of open source!", it implies that there is some sort of significant caveot or difference that makes it significantly more restrictive than other open source projects. This, of course, isn't true. Almost everyone can use LLama 2 for almost whatever they want. Yes, there are some restrictions, but the restrictions are so small that making a big deal over them incorrectly implies that there is some huge restriction, when there isn't.

jraph 3y ago
It is a huge deal, and it is a significant restriction. Why do you think Facebook added this restriction? They don't want competition as big as them. Maybe you can't imagine having 800M users yourself, but this restriction already means that: - you can't build something that a mega corporation can use. - you might need to sum up users of all your clients, which you can't really do without painful measures you haven't needed to set up so far. - if you ever reach 800M, Facebook now decides your fate The other issue is that we can't afford everyone and their dogs adding their own small restriction to open source. Mixing code bases with each their own small restriction ends up in hell.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > . Why do you think Facebook added this restriction? To put a restriction on a small amount of very large companies. No, thats not a big deal, because the vast majority of people do not work out those couple large companies. So for most people, its fine and there are basically no restrictions. > if you ever reach 800M, Facebook now decides your fate If you have to include a caveat so large that it requires 10% of the entire planet to be on your service, I am going to call that a small restriction that doesn't apply to that many people.
asadotzler 3y ago
there is a significant caveat, I cannot fork the repo, training data and all, and compete with the original. if i cannot do that, it's just not open source.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > and compete with the original. Yes you can. You can take the weights and fine tune them. Or you can just use the weights. Thats a huge deal that shouldn't be dismissed as if its the same category as some model that is locked behind an API.

jraph 3y ago

It is a huge deal, and it is a significant restriction. Why do you think Facebook added this restriction? They don't want competition as big as them. Maybe you can't imagine having 800M users yourself, but this restriction already means that: - you can't build something that a mega corporation can use. - you might need to sum up users of all your clients, which you can't really do without painful measures you haven't needed to set up so far. - if you ever reach 800M, Facebook now decides your fate The other issue is that we can't afford everyone and their dogs adding their own small restriction to open source. Mixing code bases with each their own small restriction ends up in hell.

stale2002 3y ago
> . Why do you think Facebook added this restriction? To put a restriction on a small amount of very large companies. No, thats not a big deal, because the vast majority of people do not work out those couple large companies. So for most people, its fine and there are basically no restrictions. > if you ever reach 800M, Facebook now decides your fate If you have to include a caveat so large that it requires 10% of the entire planet to be on your service, I am going to call that a small restriction that doesn't apply to that many people.

asadotzler 3y ago

there is a significant caveat, I cannot fork the repo, training data and all, and compete with the original. if i cannot do that, it's just not open source.

stale2002 3y ago
> and compete with the original. Yes you can. You can take the weights and fine tune them. Or you can just use the weights. Thats a huge deal that shouldn't be dismissed as if its the same category as some model that is locked behind an API.