This is why I've always considered the weights-vs-source debate to be an enormous red herring that skips the far more important question: are the weights actually "Open" in the first place?

If Llama released everything that the most zealous opponents of weights=source demand they release under the same license that they're currently offering the weights under, we'd still be left with something that falls cleanly into the category of Source Available. It's a generous Source Available, but removes many of the freedoms that are part of both the Open Source and Free Software Definitions.

The post states:

> One example where this requirement wasn't violated, is on build.nvidia.com

But built with llama isn't shown prominently, so this is actually an example of a violation of the license.

AFAIK it’s still an open question whether there is any copyright in model weights, for various reasons including the lack of human authorship. Which would mean that if you didn’t separately and explicitly agree to the license by clicking through something, there is no basis for the “by using this model” agreement.

Of course you probably don’t have enough money to get a ruling on this question, just wanted to point out that (afaik) it is up for debate.

I'm in the "model weights aren't copyrightable" camp myself. I think the license exists largely to shield Meta from liability or the actions of third parties.

This was posted by the author a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get any traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43504429