4 ms·

> "Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, in

by jph00 2y ago

> "Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, into any potential Meta profit, and to disavow liability to prevent reputational harm in the case of someone using their freeware for something embarrassing." You seem to be making claims that have little connection to the actual license. The license states you can't use the model if, at the time Llama 3 was released, you had >700 million customers. It also says you can't use it for illegal/military/etc uses. Other than that, you can use it as you wish.

simonw 2y ago
Those additional restrictions mean it's not an open source license by the OSI definition, which matters if you care about words sometimes having unambiguous meanings. I call models like this "openly licensed" but not "open source licensed".
- jph00 2y ago
  The OSI definition applies to source code -- I'm not sure the term "open source" makes much sense applied to model weights. Whilst I agree the term isn't ideal, I don't agree with the other comments in the post I originally replied to.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  Call it what you will, but it'd be silly if Meta let these 700M+ customer mega-corps (Amazon, Google, etc) just take Meta models and sell access to them without sharing revenue with Meta. You should be happy that Meta find ways to make money from their models, otherwise it's unlikely that they'd be giving you free access (until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends).
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3 had 700M+ customers need an extra licence to use it. It doesn’t say that you loose access to it if in the future you gain that many users.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
      You don't lose access, but the free ride ends. It seems that new licence will include payment terms. Zuckerberg discusses this on the Dwarkesh interview.
      - krisoft 2y ago
        What does the “free ride ends” mean? If you mean you can’t use the next model they might release after you have reached that many users, sure that might be true. It is not true that you have to pay for the already released llama 3. I don’t care what Zuckerberg says. I care what the licence says. I recommend you to read it. It is shorter and more approachable than the usual rental agreement of a flat.
        HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
        Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license, which Meta may or may not choose to grant to you. It does not say what the terms of that new license will be, but if you are interested you can watch the Dwarkesh interview, or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license - you will pay. ** 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Meta Llama 3 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.
        RexM 2y ago
        It seems pretty clear cut that it’s monthly active users when Llama 3 is released. > If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users … is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month … If that’s not true then the free license applies to you.
  - boppo1 2y ago
    >You should be happy that Meta find ways to make money from their models, I am, this is unambiguously great. Just don't call it open source.
- pama 2y ago
  Isn’t a simple interpretation of this type of license that some people get the open source license and others get the commercial license? Almost like a switch statement for licenses. If you belong in the category that gets the commercial one, you cannot call it open source for sure, but if you belong to the other category then it seems like an open source license to me. There is no guarantee about future licenses, and some (reasonable) restrictions but all open source licenses have some terms attached.
wantsanagent 2y ago
That "etc" is doing a lot of work here. The point of OSI licenses like MIT, Apache 2.0 is to remove the "etc". The licensing company gives up its right to impose acceptable use policies. More restrictive, but still OSI approved, licenses are as clear as they possibly can be about allowed uses and the language is as unambiguous as possible. Neither is the case for the Llama AUP.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
That's convenient because I only have 699,999,999 customers.
- xyproto 2y ago
  Simultaneously.
asadotzler 2y ago
any scale restrictions plus the "etc." means it's not open source.

by jph00 2y ago

simonw 2y ago

Those additional restrictions mean it's not an open source license by the OSI definition, which matters if you care about words sometimes having unambiguous meanings. I call models like this "openly licensed" but not "open source licensed".

jph00 2y ago
The OSI definition applies to source code -- I'm not sure the term "open source" makes much sense applied to model weights. Whilst I agree the term isn't ideal, I don't agree with the other comments in the post I originally replied to.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Call it what you will, but it'd be silly if Meta let these 700M+ customer mega-corps (Amazon, Google, etc) just take Meta models and sell access to them without sharing revenue with Meta. You should be happy that Meta find ways to make money from their models, otherwise it's unlikely that they'd be giving you free access (until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends).
- krisoft 2y ago
  > until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3 had 700M+ customers need an extra licence to use it. It doesn’t say that you loose access to it if in the future you gain that many users.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    You don't lose access, but the free ride ends. It seems that new licence will include payment terms. Zuckerberg discusses this on the Dwarkesh interview.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      What does the “free ride ends” mean? If you mean you can’t use the next model they might release after you have reached that many users, sure that might be true. It is not true that you have to pay for the already released llama 3. I don’t care what Zuckerberg says. I care what the licence says. I recommend you to read it. It is shorter and more approachable than the usual rental agreement of a flat.
      - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
        Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license, which Meta may or may not choose to grant to you. It does not say what the terms of that new license will be, but if you are interested you can watch the Dwarkesh interview, or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license - you will pay. ** 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Meta Llama 3 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.
        RexM 2y ago
        It seems pretty clear cut that it’s monthly active users when Llama 3 is released. > If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users … is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month … If that’s not true then the free license applies to you.
- boppo1 2y ago
  >You should be happy that Meta find ways to make money from their models, I am, this is unambiguously great. Just don't call it open source.
pama 2y ago
Isn’t a simple interpretation of this type of license that some people get the open source license and others get the commercial license? Almost like a switch statement for licenses. If you belong in the category that gets the commercial one, you cannot call it open source for sure, but if you belong to the other category then it seems like an open source license to me. There is no guarantee about future licenses, and some (reasonable) restrictions but all open source licenses have some terms attached.

wantsanagent 2y ago

That "etc" is doing a lot of work here. The point of OSI licenses like MIT, Apache 2.0 is to remove the "etc". The licensing company gives up its right to impose acceptable use policies. More restrictive, but still OSI approved, licenses are as clear as they possibly can be about allowed uses and the language is as unambiguous as possible. Neither is the case for the Llama AUP.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

That's convenient because I only have 699,999,999 customers.

xyproto 2y ago
Simultaneously.

asadotzler 2y ago

any scale restrictions plus the "etc." means it's not open source.