48

While Meta’s license makes Llama 2 free for many, it’s still a limited license that doesn’t meet all the requirements of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). As outlined in the OSI’s Open Source Definition, open source is more than just sharing some code or research. To be truly open source is to offer free redistribution, access to the source code, allow modifications, and must not be tied to a specific product. Meta’s limits include requiring a license fee for any developers with more than 700 million daily users and disallowing other models from training on Llama. IEEE Spectrum wrote researchers from Radboud University in the Netherlands claimed Meta saying Llama 2 is open-source “is misleading,” and social media posts questioned how Meta could claim it as open-source.

One of Meta’s biggest open-source initiatives is PyTorch, a machine learning coding language used to develop generative AI models. The company released PyTorch to the open source community in 2016, and outside developers have been iterating on it ever since. Pineau hopes to foster the same excitement around its generative AI models, particularly since PyTorch “has improved so much” since being open-sourced.

The industry’s open source players tend to be smaller developers like Stability AI and EleutherAI — which have found some success in the commercial space. Open source developers regularly release new LLMs on the code repositories of Hugging Face and GitHub. Falcon, an open-source LLM from Dubai-based Technology Innovation Institute, has also grown in popularity and is rivaling both Llama 2 and GPT-4.

Pineau says current licensing schemes were not built to work with software that takes in vast amounts of outside data, as many generative AI services do. Most licenses, both open-source and proprietary, give limited liability to users and developers and very limited indemnity to copyright infringement. But Pineau says AI models like Llama 2 contain more training data and open users to potentially more liability if they produce something considered infringement. The current crop of software licenses does not cover that inevitability.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 48954246@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Facebook doesn't do anything that doesn't make Facebook money so excuse my skepticism.

[-] folkrav@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

React? I however seem to remember they did try to change the licensing at one point...

[-] duncesplayed@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They didn't "try": they did change the licence. From BSD+Patents to MIT. Hardly scandalous.

[-] folkrav@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

We were both kind of right, actually. The initial 2013 release was Apache 2.0, they moved to BSD+patents by 2014, then relicensed to MIT in 2017

load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
48 points (90.0% liked)

Open Source

31358 readers
71 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS