Llama 2 License: Not Truly Open Source?
Understanding the Llama 2 License
The Llama 2 license, created by Meta, has generated confusion and debate within the open source community. While it appears usable, it lacks the straightforwardness and approval of established open source licenses like Apache-2.0.
Prohibited Uses and Concerns
One of the concerns raised about the Llama 2 license is the section on Prohibited Uses. This section outlines specific use cases that the user must accept before using the software. These restrictions, which include prohibiting use by large companies under certain circumstances, have led some to question the license's compatibility with the principles of open source.
Comparing to AGPL and Other Licenses
Advocates for stricter open source licenses argue that the Llama 2 license falls short of meeting the standards set by the Affero General Public License (AGPL) or similar licenses. AGPL requires that any modifications to the software must also be made available as open source, ensuring the preservation of the open nature of the code.
Download Concerns
Additionally, there is confusion regarding the difference between downloading Llama 2 from Meta's official website and obtaining it through third-party repositories like HuggingFace. While Meta has confirmed that downloads from their site require accepting the license agreement, it's unclear if obtaining the software from external sources is subject to the same restrictions.
Conclusion
The Llama 2 license has sparked ongoing discussions about the definition of open source. While the license may appear usable, its deviations from established norms have raised doubts about its compatibility with the principles of open source. Those seeking strict open source licenses may consider adhering to licenses like AGPL or stricter alternatives.
Comments