1–10 of 53 posts
The original LLaMA code is GPL licensed which means any project using it must also be released under GPL.
This "taints" any other code and prevents meaningful academic and commercial use.
Lit-LLaMA solves that for good.
Show HN: A fully open-source (Apache 2.0)implementation of llama
github.com
I am in love with this implementation considering the ability to run on 8 GB VRAM and Apache 2.0 license.
Prevents meaningful academic.....
How the hell does agpl prevent academic use? Commercial use sure because agpl follows 4 freedoms and commercial often wants to take someone else's work, slap their brand without acknowledging the original work. That and the downstream is often closed source for "business reasons" which causes their users to not enjoy the fruits of the first party's licensing.
Where does academia come into it? Are researchers now keeping everything under wraps for "shareholders interests"?
Isn't academia supposed to be open culture from the start without any restrictions so what am I missing or are they mixing two unrelated things?
Also, I think I might be wrong but isn't it merely converting llama into their version? Uh ...
Llama by FB is under a non-commercial license not a GPL license, so I assume you are using a different base model, what model is that?
2) Doesn't the original FB license also apply to the weights? Just re-implementing the code would not change the license on the weights. So while THE CODE may now be re-licensed, the weights would still fall under the original license.
I'd love if someone with more legal understanding could shed some light on this.