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
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.
Hmm. Sure the legal issues is why it is the way it is. It doesn’t necessarily mean it should be that way… But it’s more complicated than that.
With the dataset, I’m sure people could figure out something to do with it. There are community curated datasets, previous attempts to recreate models like RedPajama… Sure this is a lot more, but other people are making progress, too. And if not that we could at least have a look at it, do some research, statistics… Maybe use parts of it for something else. That’s the spirit of the free software movement.
I’m a bit split on the topic. FOSS doesn’t translate directly to ML models. Not being able to recreate something isn’t how it’s supposed to be. But it’s not software either and works differently. Releasing datasets would give us some progress and give the tools to other people than just the big tech companies who are free to violate copyright law. But we’re still missing the millions to afford the compute to train a model anyways.
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.
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
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.
I think the OSI started about last June to work on that:
https://opensource.org/deepdive
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.
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.
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?
Hmm. Sure the legal issues is why it is the way it is. It doesn’t necessarily mean it should be that way… But it’s more complicated than that.
With the dataset, I’m sure people could figure out something to do with it. There are community curated datasets, previous attempts to recreate models like RedPajama… Sure this is a lot more, but other people are making progress, too. And if not that we could at least have a look at it, do some research, statistics… Maybe use parts of it for something else. That’s the spirit of the free software movement.
I’m a bit split on the topic. FOSS doesn’t translate directly to ML models. Not being able to recreate something isn’t how it’s supposed to be. But it’s not software either and works differently. Releasing datasets would give us some progress and give the tools to other people than just the big tech companies who are free to violate copyright law. But we’re still missing the millions to afford the compute to train a model anyways.
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.