[notpushkin]

This is in fact pretty explicitly not open source: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-recipes/blob/d83d0ae7f5c...

(And given there is no LICENSE file, I’m afraid you can only use this code as reference at best right now)

[creativenolo]

It doesn’t look that useful to use as it. But the approach there are investigating is clearly and well documented in plain text. Seems like a valid contribution to public knowledge to be grateful for, even if it can’t be use verbatim.

[hackernewds]

I would just hope that they disingeniously stop promoting these kind of things as open source

[creativenolo]

This content could easily be a blog post and worth a read. But it’s in notebook form to make it interactive.

It’s a tired comment narrative about these being about open source.

[notpushkin]

It’s literally the title in the README: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-recipes/tree/main/recipe...

[notpushkin]

(Please note that the parent poster has edited their comment. Before edit, they implied that it was the OP who included the words “open source” in the HN post title.)

[creativenolo]

Also the text is enjoyably playful “For our GPU poor friends” and “let's proceed to justify our distaste for writing regex”

[egnehots]

It might be a mistake since it's different from what's stated in their readme:

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...

(which is referring to the license of Meta Llama 3.2)

[notpushkin]

Oh, I see the links now, thanks! But they reference four different licenses, and those are the licenses just for model weights I think?

If the intention was to make something that you can only use with Llama models, stating that clearly in a separate code license file would be better IMO. (Of course, this would also mean that the code still isn’t open source.)

[Kiro]

Thanks but I will use it anyway.