Hacker News Reader

Comment by dartos | Hacker News Reader

Yep. No truly open source big models around rn, but people keep calling them open source. Some amazing marketing by meta.

View on HN

At least Meta's license mainly restricts usage from other large companies.

The Falcon 180B license is special, even in the context of "open" LLM models:

https://huggingface.co/spaces/tiiuae/falcon-180b-license/blo...

> 5.3. The Acceptable Use Policy may be updated from time to time. You should monitor the web address at which the Acceptable Use Policy is hosted to ensure that your use of the Work or any Derivative Work complies with the updated Acceptable Use Policy.

This is basically "don't use it" for any business that retains a lawyer.

Meta’s llm license prevents you from using llama data to train or fine tune a non llama model.

Feels very EEE to me.

I am not sure how can a binary have open source license at first place

Source code is, for the GPL, the “preferred form for modification”. Given the outrageous cost of training from scratch, plus the ability to fine tune models... I don't think it's completely ridiculous.

Edit: plus, the industry acts like models aren't derivative works of the training data. If true the source license is less important than the model!

not so much about reading/modifying the source, more about what you can build on top, but point taken, could use a different word, "public domain" would be nice if anyone actually wanted to give something back to the public after digesting all the information ever produced

Through the magic of marketing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com