• @airglow
    link
    English
    2
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military purposes (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 hours ago

      The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources

      So as I understand it, under the OSI definition of the word, anything distributed under a copyleft licence would not be open source.

      So all software with GNU GPL, for example.

      • @airglow
        link
        English
        3
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        That’s incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.

        The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling or distributing GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. For example, all Linux distributions contain GPL-licensed software, as the Linux kernel is GPLv2.