This is essentially what Llama does, no? The reason they are attempting a clarification is because they would be subject to different regulations depending on whether or not it’s open source.
If they open source everything they legally can, then do they qualify as “open source” for legal purposes? The difference can be tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU according to Meta.
So a clarification on this issue, I think, is not asking for so much. Hate Facebook as much as the next guy but this is like 5 minute hate material
If they open source everything they legally can, then do they qualify as “open source” for legal purposes?
No, definitely not! Open source is a binary attribute. If your product is partially open source, it’s not open source, only the parts you open sourced.
So Llama is not open source, even if some parts are.
I agree with you. What I’m saying is that perhaps the law can differentiate between “not open source” “partially open source” and “fully open source”
right now it’s just the binary yes/no. which again determines whether or not millions of people would have access to something that could be useful to them
i’m not saying change the definition of open source. i’m saying for legal purposes, in the EU, there should be some clarification in the law. if there is a financial benefit to having an open source product available then there should be something for having a partially open source product available
especially a product that is as open source as it could possible legally be without violating copyright
Open source isn’t defined legally, only through the OSI. The benefit is only from a marketing perspective as far as I’m aware.
Which is also why it’s important that “open source” doesn’t get mixed up with “partially open source”, otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.
There are different requirements if the provider falls under “Free and open licence GPAI model providers”
Which is legally defined in that piece of legislation
otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.
Meta has done a lot for Open source, to their credit. React Native is my preferred framework for mobile development, for example.
Again- I fully acknowledge they are a large evil megacorp but without evil large megacorps we would not have Open Source as we know it today. There are certain realities we need to accept based on the system we live in. Open Source only exists because corporations benefit off of this shared infrastructure.
Our laws should encourage this type of behavior and not restrict it. By limiting the scope, it gives Meta less incentive to open source the code behind their AI models. We want the opposite. We want to incentivize
This is essentially what Llama does, no? The reason they are attempting a clarification is because they would be subject to different regulations depending on whether or not it’s open source.
If they open source everything they legally can, then do they qualify as “open source” for legal purposes? The difference can be tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU according to Meta.
So a clarification on this issue, I think, is not asking for so much. Hate Facebook as much as the next guy but this is like 5 minute hate material
No, definitely not! Open source is a binary attribute. If your product is partially open source, it’s not open source, only the parts you open sourced.
So Llama is not open source, even if some parts are.
I agree with you. What I’m saying is that perhaps the law can differentiate between “not open source” “partially open source” and “fully open source”
right now it’s just the binary yes/no. which again determines whether or not millions of people would have access to something that could be useful to them
i’m not saying change the definition of open source. i’m saying for legal purposes, in the EU, there should be some clarification in the law. if there is a financial benefit to having an open source product available then there should be something for having a partially open source product available
especially a product that is as open source as it could possible legally be without violating copyright
Open source isn’t defined legally, only through the OSI. The benefit is only from a marketing perspective as far as I’m aware.
Which is also why it’s important that “open source” doesn’t get mixed up with “partially open source”, otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.
It is defined legally in the EU
https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/
There are different requirements if the provider falls under “Free and open licence GPAI model providers”
Which is legally defined in that piece of legislation
Meta has done a lot for Open source, to their credit. React Native is my preferred framework for mobile development, for example.
Again- I fully acknowledge they are a large evil megacorp but without evil large megacorps we would not have Open Source as we know it today. There are certain realities we need to accept based on the system we live in. Open Source only exists because corporations benefit off of this shared infrastructure.
Our laws should encourage this type of behavior and not restrict it. By limiting the scope, it gives Meta less incentive to open source the code behind their AI models. We want the opposite. We want to incentivize