Re:LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter
by Ajedi32 on Friday July 21, 2023 @01:57PM
(#36817144)
I'd say it's enforceable in the sense that if you agree to the license then violating those terms would be breach of contract regardless of whether use of the LLaMA v2 output is protected by copyright or not. But there's nothing stopping someone else who didn't agree to the license from using output you generate with LLaMA v2 to train their model.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter
by danShumway on Friday July 21, 2023 @03:00PM
(#36817999)
I don't want to dip too much into the conversation of whether weights themselves are copyrightable, but note that it's very easy in the case of LLaMA 1.0 to get the weights and play with them without ever signing a contract.
If they turn out to be not copyrightable, then... all this would mean is downloading LLaMA 2.0 weights from a mirror instead of from Facebook.