References
•
20230302
◦
model : 
73
73•
20230310
◦
lamma.cpp : https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp
•
20230312
◦
▪
Run LLaMA and Alpaca on your computer.
•
20230313 : pixel 6 위에서 구동
License
You make something open source by granting rights under an approved license. Meta’s license looks pretty open at first glance with phrases like “You are granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable and royalty-free limited license under Meta’s intellectual property or other rights owned by Meta embodied in the Llama Materials to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, create derivative works of, and make modifications to the Llama Materials.” So far so good, you can do what you like – but watch out for the restrictions, carefully designed to protect Meta’s share of the market:
“2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.“
Sorry Google or anyone else running a particularly large Internet service with lots of users (someone mentioned even Snapchat comes under this restriction) – you can’t use Meta’s model. Is this concerning for anyone else? Probably not, but it’s still anti-competitive.
“v. You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof).”
So you can’t use Llama 2 to generate training data for either building or fine tuning any other model, which is potentially more of a problem as lots of people might want to do this.
This is Meta’s own license, created by them and not approved by the Open Source Initiative, who are generally accepted to be the (non-profit) authorities on what is open source and what is not. It has similarities to the approaches taken by MongoDB and Elastic to restrict the use of their software by cloud hosting companies like Amazon, as I’ve written about previously.