3 ms·
“Close” is not good enough for using a term with a very specific meaning. OSI = open source, everything else is source-available (which its arguable that either
by tourmalinetaco 2y ago
“Close” is not good enough for using a term with a very specific meaning. OSI = open source, everything else is source-available (which its arguable that either even applies, because the source of the weights, the dataset, is not available).
I agree that for Llama, things are weird and they want to cover their bases, and that its better than nothing, but the specific use of “open source” is a long-running corporate dilution of what open source really means and I am tired of it.
- riedel 2y agoFunny thing is that what they implemented in that licence is kind of a copy left thingy. Because you can use llama to train other models, but you would have to declare them derivative and thus keep the licence terms. (Not saying this is OSI compliant, but at least a IMHO a new kind of beast)