3 ms·
Llama 3 is not open source [0]. The commonly accepted usage of open source is that it is available for commercial reuse and alteration without restriction [1].
by abetusk 3y ago
Llama 3 is not open source [0]. The commonly accepted usage of open source is that it is available for commercial reuse and alteration without restriction [1]. Llama 3 puts restrictions on types of commercial use that are acceptable as well as what type of general use is acceptable (retraining or using it to train other models is restricted maybe?).
I find it distressing when a CEO of a trillion dollar company is pontificating about the benefits of them open sourcing their code when they haven't done so.
[0] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3 https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
- jamesy0ung 3y agoI agree that not open source, but it is still a lot better than what other companies in the industry are doing.
- ipsum2 3y agoMeets the definition of the Wikipedia article you linked: "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution." Though, it doesn't meet the OSI definition.
- abetusk 3y agoNo, it doesn't meet the Wikipedia description, nor does it meet the OSI definition. From the Wikipedia article [0]: """ ... Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses. ... """ Further, taken from the Llama 3 LICENSE file on GitHub [1]: """ 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 Meta Llama 3 or derivative works thereof). """ [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Open-source_licens... [1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE
- ipsum2 3y agoLlama3 allows commercial redistribution and modification of the source code though.
- abetusk 3y agoWith restrictions that prevent it from being open source. From the LICENSE file on Llama 3: """ 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. """ My point remains. Llama 3 is not open source, either as the OSI defines nor by a commonly held definition of open source.
- ipsum2 3y agoNah, it meets the colloquial definition of open source, but not the strict OSI definition.
- paxys 3y agoThere are many definitions of open source. The one you posted would disqualify anything that is GPL/copyleft, for example, but a large chunk of the community will argue that that is in fact the truest form of open source. Open source doesn't have to mean free from any restriction.
- renaudg 3y agoHe explains in the video that the goal is basically to force AWS / GCP / Azure into revenue sharing agreements in their Llama-based products. For 99% of users, it's as good as open source.
- abetusk 3y agoYou're not addressing the core issue that I brought up. They use the term "open source" inappropriately. They could have said "fair licensing terms" but instead chose to use "open source". If their licensing terms are as good for 99% of user, then they should say "fair licensing terms that are as good as open source for 99% of users", not that they're open source.