[HN Gopher] Meta's LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Meta's LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source
        
       Author : reedciccio
       Score  : 18 points
       Date   : 2023-07-21 21:33 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (blog.opensource.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (blog.opensource.org)
        
       | SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
       | > Among other requirements, for a license to be Open Source, it
       | may not discriminate against persons or groups or fields of
       | endeavor (OSD points 5 and 6). Meta's license for the LLaMa
       | models and code does not meet this standard; specifically, it
       | puts restrictions on commercial use for some users (paragraph 2)
       | and also restricts the use of the model and software for certain
       | purposes (the Acceptable Use Policy).
       | 
       | They list AGPL as open source[0]. Couldn't it be argued that AGPL
       | would also fail on these points?
       | 
       | I agree that Llama 2 isn't open source. Just curious if there's a
       | double standard in the assessment.
       | 
       | [0] https://opensource.org/licenses/
        
         | version_five wrote:
         | What specifically do you think AGPL runs afoul of in the open
         | source definition?
         | 
         | I do see a paradox of saying you're free to do what you want
         | with software and then adding responsibilities as GPL does, but
         | as far as being open source, you are free under AGPL to use it
         | for any purpose, modify in any way, etc, you just have to share
         | what you do under the same license, so I don't see why it
         | wouldn't qualify.
        
       | est31 wrote:
       | Some threads discussing the non-open source nature of LLaMa 2:
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817938
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36783019
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817571
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Thanks! Macroexpanded:
         | 
         |  _Why did Meta open-source Llama 2?_ -
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817938 - July 2023 (42
         | comments)
         | 
         |  _Meta can call Llama open source as much as it likes, but that
         | doesn 't mean it is_ -
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817571 - July 2023 (5
         | comments)
         | 
         |  _Llama 2 is not open source_ -
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36783019 - July 2023 (16
         | comments)
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related ongoing thread:
       | 
       |  _In the LLM space, "open source" is being used to mean
       | "downloadable weights"_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36815255 - July 2023 (182
       | comments)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-07-21 23:01 UTC)