> there’s a material and significant amount of copyrighted material related to LLaMa which is critical to running it. Which files from the torrent do you asser

> there’s a material and significant amount of copyrighted material related to LLaMa which is critical to running it. Which files from the torrent do you assert are required? > system’s dependencies on legally protected materials. Do you think the weights are copyrightable? The dependencies are irrelevant because they weren't in the leak. > Again, this is not true, that’s property laundering; Only, if there is actual copyrightable material. And not just an adjacent copyrightable material that is required to use the weights, but the weights themselves because they are what leaked. If not this is a trade-secret scenario not a copyright scenario. If there's no copyright on the weights then there's no "laundering" because there's no general restriction on the public using the material once it leaks. If Coke lost its recipe and it turned up online, everyone including Pepsi would be free to use it. What is certain is that the "no commercial use" clause is irrelevant. The only people the license is binding on are those who accepted it. If the weights are copyrightable then the license is irrelevant to you because it simply hasn't been offered to you. If the material isn't copyrightable then there's no reason to accept the license once it leaks. > worth noting Facebook has already begun taking legal actions against developers related to LLaMa leak They clearly have a copyright on at least one file (llama.sh) in that archive so yes, they can make a DMCA takedown claim. That doesn't prove anything you're saying though, about weights and the ability to use them.