But I do agree that all other big AI companies should be held to those same standards, and made to pay for every bit of prior work they use for training
Nah. That’s just propaganda. The copyright people make that stuff up to help their argument against fair use and to drown out the likes of the Internet Archive or the EFF.
In truth, these exceptions don’t matter for Meta. They also offer these models as chatbots; as a service. That brings back all those useless bureaucratic hoops. The exceptions would matter for small players, but the copyright industry has pretty much neutralized them anyway.
Uh huh. They’re going after the first major proponent of open source AI.
Unless they fuck sam altman until he bleeds this is a bullshit court
Well, technically speaking, Llama is not really open source. Rumours are Meta is only trying to get everyone to call it open source so they can have an advantage in the European market, which is a lot more restrictive for closed source models than open source ones https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not-open-source https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/19/llama-eu-ai-act/
But I do agree that all other big AI companies should be held to those same standards, and made to pay for every bit of prior work they use for training
Nah. That’s just propaganda. The copyright people make that stuff up to help their argument against fair use and to drown out the likes of the Internet Archive or the EFF.
In truth, these exceptions don’t matter for Meta. They also offer these models as chatbots; as a service. That brings back all those useless bureaucratic hoops. The exceptions would matter for small players, but the copyright industry has pretty much neutralized them anyway.
This is their most recent license which is yeah a dick move but they used to be more open
Since the first Llama release and onwards, Meta has been exclusively licensed as weights-available with commercial restrictions.
It is in no way open-source in the classic sense, nor has it ever been.