Meta can call Llama open source as much as it likes, but that doesn't mean it is

theregister.com

32 points·rntn··5 comments

It’s like open source in that anyone can use it and modify it and build on it. It’s not like open source in that you can’t inspect what went into making it. We probably need a new word to describe the new paradigm. “Open model” works pretty well. At least it’s better than what “open ai” means by open. Namely that anyone can pay to call the api.

> It’s like open source in that anyone can use it and modify it and build on it

Not anyone. FTA:

“if the technology is used in an app or service with more than 700 million monthly users, a special license is required from Meta.”

Also, the “use it” part is restricted. Again FTA:

“the community agreement forbids the use of Llama 2 to train other language models”

That’s not what commonly is called open source.

That's called the cathedral or bazzare models and it's existed for like 30 years.

I googled that and only found references to software development models, roughly cathedral meaning you release the code with each software release and bazaar meaning the current state of the code is in public view all the time. Is there another meaning? I like the idea of a licensing model that acknowledges you can't inspect or even necessarily understand the current model but can fine tune it or create derivative works with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

The thing about Open Source is it lacks ethics. It looks and quacks like Free Software, but in the end it means whatever the capital wants it to mean.

The problem was accepting the capitalist rewrite of Free; this was merely the inevitable result of taking a system based on ethics, removing those ethics, and then pretending nothing changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com