8 ms·

Meets the definition of the Wikipedia article you linked: "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution

by ipsum2 3y ago

Meets 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 ago
No, 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 ago
  Llama3 allows commercial redistribution and modification of the source code though.
  - abetusk 3y ago
    With 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 ago
      Nah, it meets the colloquial definition of open source, but not the strict OSI definition.

by ipsum2 3y ago

abetusk 3y ago

No, 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 ago
Llama3 allows commercial redistribution and modification of the source code though.
- abetusk 3y ago
  With 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 ago
    Nah, it meets the colloquial definition of open source, but not the strict OSI definition.