On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:53:31PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> The companies [...] want to restrict what you can actually use it
> for, and call it open source? And then OSI makes a definition that
> seems carefully crafted to let these kind of licenses slip through?
The licensing terms for t
On 2024/10/29 18:09, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
The earliest comment I'm aware of from them on that specific point
is this article (2023-07-20):
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source
Yeah although Llama2 wasn't promoted as a ground-breaking Open Source
LLM the way Ll
Hi Stefano
On 2024/10/29 13:03, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:53:31PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
The companies [...] want to restrict what you can actually use it
for, and call it open source? And then OSI makes a definition that
seems carefully crafted to let these k
On 2024-10-29 17:45:20 +0200 (+0200), Jonathan Carter wrote:
[...]
> What is the OSI's motivation for creating such an incredibly lax definition
> for open source AI? Meta is already calling their absolutely-not-open-source
> model Open Source and promoting it as such, without as much as a *peep* f
[ reordering quoted text ]
Hello Jonathan,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:45:20PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2024/10/29 13:03, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >
> > To make Llama models OSAID-compliant Meta [...] will also have to:
> > [...] (3) release under DFSG-compatible terms their entire tr
5 matches
Mail list logo
