The company #Meta recently released #Llama 3.1, an #AI model they claim is "open source".
This is false. Llama 3.1 is NOT open source.
They released it under a license which under 1.b.iv. demands you agree to an "acceptable use policy" which basically forbids using it in any way they don't like. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/meta-llama/llama-models/main/models/llama3_1/LICENSE
This is a violation of rule 6 in the Open Source Definition: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. https://opensource.org/osd
The Open Source Definition
Introduction Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The licens…Open Source Initiative
Wuzzy
in reply to Wuzzy • • •The term "open source" is broken anyway. Corporations constantly try to redefine this term in a way that gives them all the free press while having zero of the responsibilities.
To corporations, the official definition of "open source" is "whatever we feel like it". They don't give a single shit about the actual history and values.
The term "open source" is a lost cause, I prefer the term "free software" which corporations are MUCH more scared to use for some reason. 😉
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛
in reply to Wuzzy • • •@Wuzzy No, people call them out on that shit all the time? It's a well-defined term.
Strypey
in reply to Wuzzy • • •(1/?)
@Wuzzy
> The term "open source" is broken anyway
It's a generic term, so there's only so much gatekeeping anyone can do. But the OSI continue to endorse only licenses that also meet the Free Software Definition. Eg they rejected the recent crop of Source Available licenses, for failing to respect the same OSD criteria the Llama license violates, as you point out.
🚴 maricn ✊
in reply to Strypey • • •do you have a source on this, like what was rejected? bc, iirc GPLv3 is also prohibiting proprietary usage of the code and therefore fails that definition, but is to me much dearer than MIT which is more permissive..
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛
in reply to 🚴 maricn ✊ • • •@🚴 maricn ✊ The most important one in recent memory was the SSPL. It was submitted for certification and would have been rejected, but was withdrawn by the applicant when that became clear.
@Strypey @Wuzzy
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛
in reply to clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 • • •Outright rejection is rare, the SSPL case is more typical. The process seeks consensus and collaborative improvement, and a license that would be rejected is seldom put up for a vote. I guess you could say it gets rejected by attrition:
https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses/issues/58
@Strypey @🚴 maricn ✊ @Wuzzy