Hacker News Reader

Comment by amusingimpala75 | Hacker News Reader

Sure but under what license? Because slapping “open source” on the model doesn’t make it open source if it’s not actually license that way. The 3.1 license still contains their non-commercial clause (over 700m users) and requires derivatives, whether fine tunings or trained on generated data, to use the llama name.

View on HN

"Use it for whatever you want(conditions apply), but not if you are Google, Amazon, etc. If you become big enough talk to us." That's how I read the license, but obviously I might be missing some nuance.

You also can't use it for training or improving other models.

You also can't use it if you're the government of India.

Neither can sex workers use it. (Do you know if your customers are sex workers?)

There are also very vague restrictions for things like discrimination, racism etc.

They're actually updating their license to allow LLAMA outputs for training!

https://x.com/AIatMeta/status/1815766335219249513

> You also can't use it if you're the government of India.

Why is that?

I'm also very curious. On the other hand I don't want governments touching AI models either

Also it isn't source code, it is a binary. You need at least the data curation code and preferably the data itself for it to be actually source code in the practical sense that anyone can remake the build.

Llama could change the license on later versions to kill your business and you have no options as you don't know how they trained it or have the budget to.

It's not much more free than binary software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com