Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#21

Post by MacsHeadroom »

querez wrote: post #10

IANAL, but this seems very fishy to me: 1) I don't understand how this isn't a derivative work of the original code, as I very highly doubt you've done a clean room implementation. I doubt this would hold up in court. 2) Doesn't the original FB license also apply to the weights? Just re-implementing the code would not change the license on the weights. So while THE CODE may now be re-licensed, the weights would still…

>I don't understand how this isn't a derivative work of the original code

The original code is Apache 2 licensed. Derivatives are fine and allowed. This retains the same Apache 2 license as Facebook's code.

It's only the model that isn't covered by that permissive Apache 2 license. A model produced by a derivative of the permissively licensed code, or even by the original code itself, is not a derivative or the original non-permissively licensed model produced by the original code and is non-infringing even if it is a bit-perfect replica.

> Doesn't the original FB license also apply to the weights?

Again, there are different licenses for the code and the model and neither license actually applies to the weights within the model only the actual exact model. If this project produced a bit-for-bit replica of Facebook's model it would still not infringe on that model's license.

But it doesn't produce a bit-for-bit replica. Even if Facebook were to re-run their same training code on their same hardware would they could not produce the exact same weights as before since massively parallel matrix multiplications are not deterministic. Benign environmental noise like microscopic fluctuations in temperature make a difference in the outcome.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#22

Post by adeon »

I think implying that GPL is not "fully open source" is a hot take. It's specifically designed to ensure you and anyone you distribute your code gets the same freedoms. Maybe you don't agree that it's a good license but that is its intention. GPL vs BSD-type licenses I guess is decades long argument by now.

Maybe I'm a naive idealist but IMO the GPL-family of licenses are underrated. You can use them to make sure you don't work for free for someone who won't share their improvements.

I liked the choice of AGPL for AUTOMATIC1111 Stable Diffusion web UI. (https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui)

Commercial interests are very allergic to AGPL which ensures the project stays community-run and new features and fixes will prioritize the most ordinary user doing things for fun.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#23

Post by cuuupid »

adeon wrote: post #22

I think implying that GPL is not "fully open source" is a hot take. It's specifically designed to ensure you and anyone you distribute your code gets the same freedoms. Maybe you don't agree that it's a good license but that is its intention. GPL vs BSD-type licenses I guess is decades long argument by now. Maybe I'm a naive idealist but IMO the GPL-family of licenses are underrated. You can use them to make sure you…

I think OP mischaracterized the issue with the license, its more that the weights don’t fall under the same scope. They’re research use only, no commercial use allowed.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#24

Post by rasbt »

cuuupid wrote: post #23
adeon wrote: post #22

I think implying that GPL is not "fully open source" is a hot take. It's specifically designed to ensure you and anyone you distribute your code gets the same freedoms. Maybe you don't agree that it's a good license but that is its intention. GPL vs BSD-type licenses I guess is decades long argument by now. Maybe I'm a naive idealist but IMO the GPL-family of licenses are underrated. You can use them to make sure you…

I think OP mischaracterized the issue with the license, its more that the weights don’t fall under the same scope. They’re research use only, no commercial use allowed.

Not sure, but I think the point was that if you have something in GPL license (like the code in this case) it's open source, but that doesn't mean you can use that for your business application. That's because GPL requires you open sourcing all derivative work and most businesses don't want to/can't do that.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#25

Post by theaniketmaurya »

alexb_ wrote: post #20

>GPL...prevents meaningful academic and commercial use WTF are you talking about?

GPL is a copyleft license which requires you to share anything that you build using the original software. This makes it difficult for commercial use.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#26

Post by rasbt »

nynx wrote: post #17

There are already a million ways to run LLaMA. This doesn't change the issue at all, which is that the weights aren't commercially licensed.

I think some businesses and people are worried about using GPL code in their code bases because that's incompatible with their own licenses.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#27

Post by theaniketmaurya »

nynx wrote: post #17

There are already a million ways to run LLaMA. This doesn't change the issue at all, which is that the weights aren't commercially licensed.

Yes, agree that the weights aren't commercially licensed (yet)! The other ways to run LLaMA are using GPL license which makes it difficult for commercial use even if someone trains and upload the weights publicly.

This could be a step in for the change :)

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#28

Post by lantiga »

rasbt wrote: post #24
cuuupid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think OP mischaracterized the issue with the license, its more that the weights don’t fall under the same scope. They’re research use only, no commercial use allowed.

Not sure, but I think the point was that if you have something in GPL license (like the code in this case) it's open source, but that doesn't mean you can use that for your business application. That's because GPL requires you open sourcing all derivative work and most businesses don't want to/can't do that.

The AI ecosystem is almost entirely Apache 2/MIT/BSD, and GPL is just incompatible with it.

This is a blocker to mixing and matching, a simple Apache 2 rewrite fixes that problem.

Weights? It’s another issue but we’ll be looking forward to fixing that too.

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#29

Post by lantiga »

barefeg wrote: post #16
Ciantic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I thought too, the source code was not an issue so much as that. What we need is some sort of "Large Language Model at Home" (like SETI@home was) that could crowdsource the creation of the model which would be free to use.

Right, so sort of like https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/petals but for the training phase. I suppose different training runs could be proposed via a RFC type of procedure. Then it’s not only the open source model maintainers that put the effort, but also supporters of the project can “donate” their hardware resources.

Some form of that is very likely the future

Re: Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama

#30

Post by n3t »

theaniketmaurya wrote: post #25
alexb_ wrote: post #20

>GPL...prevents meaningful academic and commercial use WTF are you talking about?

GPL is a copyleft license which requires you to share anything that you build using the original software. This makes it difficult for commercial use.

> GPL is a copyleft license which requires you to share anything that you build using the original software.

That's not true.

> This makes it difficult for commercial use.

Yeah, too bad it's so difficult for companies to use Linux commercially. /s

Post reply on HN