by osurits on 3/28/23, 5:33 PM with 52 comments
The original LLaMA code is GPL licensed which means any project using it must also be released under GPL.
This "taints" any other code and prevents meaningful academic and commercial use.
Lit-LLaMA solves that for good.
by adeon on 3/28/23, 7:35 PM
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.
by ipsum2 on 3/28/23, 8:48 PM
Having interacted with the Lightning AI team in the past, this is unsurprising behavior.
by querez on 3/28/23, 6:58 PM
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 fall under the original license.
I'd love if someone with more legal understanding could shed some light on this.
by 2Gkashmiri on 3/28/23, 6:26 PM
Prevents meaningful academic.....
How the hell does agpl prevent academic use? Commercial use sure because agpl follows 4 freedoms and commercial often wants to take someone else's work, slap their brand without acknowledging the original work. That and the downstream is often closed source for "business reasons" which causes their users to not enjoy the fruits of the first party's licensing.
Where does academia come into it? Are researchers now keeping everything under wraps for "shareholders interests"?
Isn't academia supposed to be open culture from the start without any restrictions so what am I missing or are they mixing two unrelated things?
Also, I think I might be wrong but isn't it merely converting llama into their version? Uh ...
by alexb_ on 3/28/23, 7:33 PM
WTF are you talking about?
by homarp on 3/28/23, 8:14 PM
https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp
previously discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35100086
and one of the rust wrapper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35171527 (also MIT)
by barefeg on 3/28/23, 7:00 PM
by ficiek on 3/28/23, 8:09 PM
by javimh on 3/29/23, 11:29 PM
by blendergeek on 3/29/23, 1:11 AM
As do I.
> The original LLaMA code is GPL licensed which means any project using it must also be released under GPL.
Yep. This ensures that AI is "fully open source and part of the collective knowledge."
> This "taints" any other code and prevents meaningful academic and commercial use.
Taints? As in "makes fully open source"? Isn't that the goal?
> Lit-LLaMA solves that for good.
Lit-LLaMA helps people create proprietary closed-source AI instead of the fully open source AI required by Llama. Okay.
by nynx on 3/28/23, 7:23 PM
by nl on 3/29/23, 12:04 AM
While this seems to be nice code I don't particularly see any reason to use that over HuggingFace transformers, where you can easily swap out alternative implementations.
Also, going to legal restrictions on the Facebook LLama code when there are much stronger restrictions on the use of the model seems an odd thing to do. It's true that in some - not all - jurisdictions it is possible the model might not be copyrightable - but you'd have a bold legal department to rely on those arguments. It's also moderately likely that an instruction-tuned Llama (like Alpaca) would be copyrightable even in those jurisdictions.
TL;DR: Use the HuggingFace transformers library. You can experiment with Llama and switch to truly free models like GPT-J or anything new that arrives very easily.
[1] https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/main/model_doc/llam...
by AmuVarma on 3/28/23, 6:33 PM
by leke on 3/29/23, 11:40 AM
by yewnork on 3/28/23, 5:59 PM
by theaniketmaurya on 3/28/23, 5:38 PM
by rasbt on 3/28/23, 5:41 PM