- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I think we need to reevaluate what it means for a model to be FOSS. There isn’t a good answer and it would be nice if some free organization would release guidelines on AI
I would think access to the training data, or at least no restrictions on what you can do with the model, would be a good definition.
access to the training data
That’s just not realistic. There are too many legal problems with that.
Besides, Llama 3 was trained on 15 trillion tokens. Whatcha gonna do with something like that?
I think the OSI started about last June to work on that:
I won’t have much faith in “open source” and the open source initiative is just a money and labor extraction machine
Just linked them as the OSI was the entity who initially coined the term.
No we don’t. Someone misusing the term doesn’t change what it is. It stands for FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. If it isn’t all three of those things then it isn’t FOSS.
For a model to be free we need the license to permit what exactly? We need to define the problem.
Reading the license, there’s 3 things.
There must be attribution. Finetunes, merges, etc need to have “Llama 3” at the beginning of the model name. This is probably consistent with FOSS.
Your use of Llama has to “adhere to the Acceptable Use Policy for the Llama Materials”. AFAIK, it’s an open question whether ethical licenses can be considered FOSS.
Finally, you must not use it, if you had more than 700 million active users in March 2024 (the calendar month before the release). I’m not sure about the legal definition of “active user”. I doubt it’s very many companies, though. In practice, it’s probably less of a restriction than copyleft, but still, strictly speaking, that’s not FOSS.
