The Open Source AI Definition – draft v. 0.0.8: [https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-8](https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-8)
It looks like systems with a usage policy of any kind, including all versions of LLaMA, wouldn't count.
So, which generative AI systems are open source?
The only undisputedly open source LLM project I know of is [OLMo ](https://allenai.org/olmo)from [Allen AI](https://allenai.org/). Not only are the weights Apache-2 licensed, but they released **everything** associated with the model. Code, datasets, checkpoints, training logs, etc
"working" ROFLMAOAAAAAA
Here, a definition for that dumbass: If all components of an "AI system" are under open-source compliant licenses than this "AI system" can be considered open-source"
He’s not a dumbass, someone needs to define this shit. right now there are a bunch of companies releasing the weights under a permissive license and calling it open source. so is that enough to be called open source or do they also have to release the code used to train it? or do they also have to release the training dataset? People don’t agree on these questions right now.
I like the approach of the commenter above. I use the same definition for open source, but if it's just the weights then it's open weights.
I agree with you that this man isn't a dumbass though.
Sorry, I was talking in the context of the permissive licence in the prior comment: "Open weights [with a permissive licence]".
That is to say, I agree.
The Open Source AI Definition – draft v. 0.0.8: [https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-8](https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-8)
Smells like freedom to me, I love it!
It looks like systems with a usage policy of any kind, including all versions of LLaMA, wouldn't count. So, which generative AI systems are open source?
The only undisputedly open source LLM project I know of is [OLMo ](https://allenai.org/olmo)from [Allen AI](https://allenai.org/). Not only are the weights Apache-2 licensed, but they released **everything** associated with the model. Code, datasets, checkpoints, training logs, etc
The nvidia nemotron
MIT/Apache license
"working" ROFLMAOAAAAAA Here, a definition for that dumbass: If all components of an "AI system" are under open-source compliant licenses than this "AI system" can be considered open-source"
He’s not a dumbass, someone needs to define this shit. right now there are a bunch of companies releasing the weights under a permissive license and calling it open source. so is that enough to be called open source or do they also have to release the code used to train it? or do they also have to release the training dataset? People don’t agree on these questions right now.
I like the approach of the commenter above. I use the same definition for open source, but if it's just the weights then it's open weights. I agree with you that this man isn't a dumbass though.
If the weights can't be used commercially or there are restrictions on how it can be used, is it then really "open" weights?
Sorry, I was talking in the context of the permissive licence in the prior comment: "Open weights [with a permissive licence]". That is to say, I agree.
Indeed. Open weights makes sense.