Very interesting read.

OK for some commercial uses but I wonder how many other models have restriction lists like this

Some parts of ethical licensing seem to finally pick up momentum, seems like they are using a standard license: https://www.licenses.ai/blog/2022/8/26/bigscience-open-rail-...

To me it would be even more responsible if they would define a default output license compatible to training input of the model. I guess they could simply refer to the input data set in there to fulfill attribution clauses of most permissive licenses. Or extract some really long list of copyright notices from the sources.

Well rather than "ethical" licensing, I'd argue this is "moral" licensing, and as usual, morals differ. For example:

> (m) To provide medical advice or medical results interpretation that is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment;

This seems particularly overly broad -- there is a lot of benefit for people with no access to a doctor of any kind that is left on the ground by excluding that use case.

The problem of bad advice is hard, but it's one that will likely become increasingly solved as the tech evolves, and this seems to exclude this model from that technological progression.

Does this work for second degree usecases? Since this a codegen model, can I output code that does something like fast-edge detection, put it under MIT, and then use it for medical analysis?

Who knows… until any of this gets tested in a court of law we can only guess (with legal professionals having the best guesses)

So another model that isn't actually open source.

This basically has the same restrictions as LLAMA and stable-diffusion. Replit is licensed under cc-by-sa-4.0 which is truely permissive.