Meta to Charge Cloud Providers for AI Tech That It Said Was Free | Hacker News Reader

Meta to Charge Cloud Providers for AI Tech That It Said Was Free

bloomberg.com

23 pointspseudosim12 comments

I am entirely on Meta's side here. They have done a huge amount for open source ML, and with the llama2 license they are enabling millions of small-to-very-large companies with incredibly valuable technology, while asking the hyperscale cloud providers to pay. This is more than reasonable, in my view.

I would like to see more open source technologies taking this kind of licensing view - free for almost everyone, except the frankly parasitic hyperscalers who profit from others' largesse.

If this is the case, then I don't see any problems with it. Hyperscalers who wish to mass deploy llama2 to make a profit should pay. That seems fair.

https://archive.is/5oOGY

Also, apparently Alibaba is already going to license it: https://www.reuters.com/technology/alibabas-cloud-unit-bring...

Paywalled or otherwise not loading.

> Meta Platforms Inc. plans to make money from the major cloud-computing companies when they resell its artificial intelligence large language model, Llama 2.

Yes, it's clearly licensed this way. They didn't say it was free. They licensed it explicitly so that massive companies with a billion or so users have to pay for software - I'm weeping for those poor souls.

I'm perfectly happy to see more people choosing licenses that benefit the vast majority of devs and businesses while forcing the obscenely large players to actually pay for the incredible value they're used to eating for free.

> Paywalled or otherwise not loading.

https://archive.is/5oOGY

> Yes, it's clearly licensed this way.

I thought so. The July 18 announcement was "Meta and Microsoft Introduce the Next Generation of Llama". To interpret that as "Meta Reneged on Their Promise to Let Amazone Monetize Llama 2 for Free" seems a bit silly. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/07/llama-2/

Open Source developer should do the same. There’s no reasons why people should provider free labour to the likes of amazon, microsoft and meta. Open source licensing terms should change. Knowledge can be free, code readable, but if turn over is higher than X amount or if you wish to use it for your procedural code generators then you have to pay.

I really hate to see that Facebook (stop calling them Meta!) is not just pretending anymore to do things that are not evil to everyone, but now actually do it. I really think it‘s a good licensing model and it‘s benefitting most of us.

Still – never forget: it’s Facebook. Don‘t care what their legal entity is named.

Don‘t let them get away with their sneaky attempt of rebranding to make people forget who they are and what they did. Also don‘t let them own the word „meta“. Why would anyone?!

https://archive.is/5oOGY

That's what you get for believing anything they say.

what do you mean? they said this exactly from first day, the license allowed commercial use unless you have more than 700m users

They also said it's open source, which is in direct contradiction with terms they use.

no, the open source apply on code not binaries, it means right to demand source code if you "purchase" binaries, means companies can still restrict or sell software binaries... in this case the model can be considered a binary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com