No, it's not. The Llama 3 Community License Agreement is not an open source license. Open source licenses need to meet the criteria of the only widely accepted definition of "open source", and that's the one formulated by the OSI [0]. This license has multiple restrictions on use and distribution which make it not open source. I know Facebook keeps calling this stuff open source, maybe in order to get all the good will that open source branding gets you, but that doesn't make it true. It's like a company calling their candy vegan while listing one its ingredients as pork-based gelatin. No matter how many times the company advertises that their product is vegan, it's not, because it doesn't meet the definition of vegan.
There are more licenses than just MIT that are "open source". GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, some of the Creative Commons licenses, etc. MIT has become the defacto default though
These discussions (ie, everything that follows here) would be much easier if the crowd insisting on the OSI definition of open source would capitalize Open Source.
In English, proper nouns are capitalized.
"Open" and "source" are both very normal English words. English speakers have "the right" to use them according to their own perspective and with personal context. It's the difference between referring to a blue tooth, and Bluetooth, or to an apple store or an Apple store.
This isn't helpful. The community defers to the OSI's definition because it captures what they care about.
We've seen people try to deceptively describe non-OSS projects as open source, and no doubt we will continue to see it. Thankfully the community (including Hacker News) is quick to call it out, and to insist on not cheapening the term.
This is one the topics that just keeps turning up:
Unless a registered trademark is involved (spoiler: it's not) no one, whether part of a so-called "community" or not, has any authority to gatekeep or dictate the terms under which a generic phrase like "open source" can be used.
Neither of those usages relate to IT, they both are about sources of intelligence (espionage). Even if they were, the OSI definition won, nobody is using the definitions from 1995 CIA or the 1996 InfoConWar book in the realm of IT, not even Facebook.
The community has the authority to complain about companies mis-labelling their pork products as vegan, even if nobody has a registered trademark on the term vegan. Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark? Likewise, the community has authority to complain about Meta/Facebook mis-labelling code as open source even when they put restrictions on usage. It's not gate-keeping or dictatorship to complain about being misled or being lied to.
You're right, I and those who agree with me were the first to ask people to "shut up", in this case, to ask Meta to stop misusing the term open source. And I was the first to say "shut up", and I know that can be inflammatory and disrespectful, so I shouldn't have used it. I'm sorry. We're here in a discussion forum, I want you to express your opinion even it is to complain about my complaints. For what it's worth, your counter-arguments have been stronger and better referenced than any other I have read (for the case of accepting a looser definition of the term open source in the realm of IT).
All good, and I also apologize if my objection came across as disrespectful.
This whole 'Open Source' thing is a bigger pet peeve than it should be, because I've received criticism for using the term on a page where I literally just posted a .zip file full of source code. The smart thing to do would have been to ignore and forget the criticism, which I will now work harder at doing.
In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. It's a standard English-language word that according to Merriam-Webster goes back to 1944. So that would amount to an open-and-shut case of false advertising, which I don't think applies here at all.
> In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'.
I don't see the difference. Open source software is a term of art with a specific meaning accepted by its community. When people misuse the term, invariably in such a way as to broaden it to include whatever it is they're pushing, it's right that the community responds harshly.
Terms of art do not require licenses. A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.
This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists. OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.
Agreed. There is no trademark on aileron or carburetor or context-free grammar. A couple of years ago I made this same point myself. [0]
> A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.
This taxonomy doesn't hold up.
Again, it's a term of art with a clear meaning accepted by its community. We've seen numerous instances of cynical and deceptive misuse of the term, which the community rightly calls out because it's not fair play, it's deliberate deception.
> This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists
It is not. Trademark law exists to protect brands, not to clarify terminology.
You seem to be contradicting your earlier point that terms of art do not require licenses.
> OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.
I haven't expressed any opinion on that topic, and I don't see a need to.
If the OSI members wanted to "clarify the terminology" in a way that permitted them (and you) to exclude others, trademark law would have absolutely been the correct way to do that. It's too late, however. The ship has sailed.
Come up with a new term and trademark that, and heck, I'll help you out with a legal fund donation when Facebook and friends inevitably try to appropriate it. Apart from that, you've fought the good fight and done what you could. Let it go.
The OSI was created about 20 years ago and defined and popularized the term open source. Their definition has been widely accepted over that period.
Recently, companies are trying to market things as open source when in reality, they fail to adhere to the definition.
I think we should not let these companies change the meaning of the term, which means it's important to explain every time they try to seem more open than they are.
> Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski, and Eric Raymond [...]
> At that meeting, alternatives to the term "free software" were discussed. [...] Raymond argued for "open source. The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference the same evening
The original "Open source Definition" was derived from Debian's Social Contract, which did not use the term "open source"
Citation? Wikipedia would appreciate your contribution.
It's not hard to find earlier examples where the phrase is used to describe enabling and (yes) leveraging community contributions to accomplish things that otherwise wouldn't be practical; see my other post for a couple of those.
But then people will rightfully object that the term "Open Source", when used in a capacity related to journalistic or intelligence-gathering activities, doesn't have anything to do with software licensing. Even if OSI had trademarked the phrase, which they didn't, that shouldn't constrain its use in another context.
To which I'd counter that this statement is equally true when discussing AI models. We are going to have to completely rewire copyright law from the ground up to deal with this. Flame wars over what "Open Source" means or who has the right to use the phrase are going to look completely inconsequential by the time the dust settles.
I'll concede that "open source" may mean other things in other contexts. For example, an open source river may mean something in particular to those who study rivers. This thread was not talking about a new context, it was not even talking about the weights of a machine learning model or the licensing of training data, it was talking about the licensing of the code in a particular GitHub repository, llama3.
AI may make copyright obsolete, or it may make copyright more important than ever, but my prediction is that the IT community will lose something of great value if the term "open source" is diluted to include licenses that restrict usage, restrict distribution, and restrict modification. I can understand why people may want to choose somewhat restrictive licenses, just like I can understand why a product may contain gelatin, but I don't like it when the product is mis-labelled as vegan. There are plenty of other terms that could be used, for example, "open" by itself. I'm honestly curious if you would defend a pork product labelled as vegan, or do you just feel that the analogy doesn't apply?
[0] - https://opensource.org/osd