If the JSON license isn't considered open, due to requiring that "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.", then I don't see how tacking an additional financial threshold onto it makes it more open. I don't think meta even released the training dataset, so you cant even replicate it (should you have the funds to do so).

There are other LLMs that don't have such restrictions, and publish their training data.

There is no open source-ish. It either protects the fundamental freedoms or it...doesn't.

Sure there is, BSD is bad because xyz, GPL is bad because zyx. That said Llama restrictions are rather harsh and you are not allowed to improve other models with it. So no freedom there just some ok beer.

Open source is both a colloquial term for available/modifiable/distributable code (like Llama2), and a strict OSI-approved list of licenses. I'd say opensource-ish is a great fit here.

"open source-ish" sounds like the perfect way to massively profitable future litigations.

Also "don't do naughty things", is there a chart for that? How is that defined, is it part of the non-existing license?

> How is that defined, is it part of the non-existing license?

What do you mean? https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENSE

Nope. It's limited by 700m monthly-active users at the time Llama2 was released, a weird catch clause for a handful of Meta competitor companies. The license doesn't satisfy OSS requirements, but it is quite reasonable.

https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/use-policy/