[commoner]

Whenever Meta claims their models are open source, you have to double-check.

SAM License (https://github.com/facebookresearch/sam3/blob/main/LICENSE):

> iv. Your use of the SAM Materials will not involve or encourage others to reverse engineer, decompile or discover the underlying components of the SAM Materials.

> v. You are not the target of Trade Controls and your use of SAM Materials must comply with Trade Controls. You agree not to use, or permit others to use, SAM Materials for any activities subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or end uses prohibited by Trade Controls, including those related to military or warfare purposes, nuclear industries or applications, espionage, or the development or use of guns or illegal weapons.

> b. If you institute litigation or other proceedings against Meta or any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the SAM Materials, outputs or results, or any portion of any of the foregoing, constitutes infringement of intellectual property or other rights owned or licensable by you, then any licenses granted to you under this Agreement shall terminate as of the date such litigation or claim is filed or instituted. You will indemnify and hold harmless Meta from and against any claim by any third party arising out of or related to your use or distribution of the SAM Materials.

The DINOv3 License (https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov3/blob/main/LICENSE...) is similar but with the model names swapped.

It's always nice when a model's weights are released, but Meta's models are not open source because their weights always come with weird restrictions.

[khuey]

We've seen b before. React was controversially released with a similar clause and ultimately Facebook dropped it and used a standard open source license. Their lawyers really love this idea for some reason.

[ahmadyan]

We used to call b the Disney/LEGO clause. Disney was famous for litigating any GenAI product for copyright infringement if it was able to recognize or god-forbid generate any of their IPs. So the lawyer cats would slip that clause into all licenses.

Personally i think it's fair. You get to use this model as long as you don't sue Meta because of the model's weights or outputs.

[bmandale]

Was it released with it? Iirc they tried moving to such a license from bsd, which contains no patent grants whatsoever, and hence they thought it was a strict upgrade. The community did not agree so they moved back.

[khuey]

My memory is a bit fuzzy but I think you're correct.

[lenerdenator]

Do their lawyers love the idea? Hard to say. My guess is, Zuck really likes the idea, so he keeps directing them and their chief counsel to try stuff like this.

It's almost as if having a CEO of a company placed beyond the control of the corporate board is a bad thing.

[SR2Z]

This is a pretty common clause when a company open sources something that was previously locked away. The AOM AV1 codec has a similar rule for its patent pool to discourage trolling.

[rat9988]

> My guess is, Zuck really likes the idea,

You made an assumption, that's a good thing to expand thinking.

> It's almost as if having a CEO of a company placed beyond the control of the corporate board is a bad thing.

You can't draw such conclusion then.

[satvikpendem]

Open source is not just open weight, even if weights are released under MIT. The source code to generate that binary weight blob isn't there.

[commoner]

I agree with you on the distinction. Meta's models are not even open weights, and yet they are claiming that their models are open source.