Comment on Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly
fuzzy_feeling@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Meta’s Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you’ll have to pay Meta to use it. That’s not open source. Period.
open source != no license restrictions
According to Meta, “Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today’s rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community.”
i think, he’s got a point, tho
is ai open source, when the trainig data isn’t?
as i understand, right now: yes, it’s enough, that the code is open source. and i think that’s a big problem
i’m not deep into ai, so correct me if i’m wrong.
airglow@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military use (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.
Syntha@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
So as I understand it, under the OSI definition of the word, anything distributed under a copyleft licence would not be open source.
So all software with GNU GPL, for example.
airglow@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That’s incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.
The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution.