• airglow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.

    • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.