4 ms·

>> If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. > literally no one here is denying the existence of c

>> If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. > literally no one here is denying the existence of clickwrap agreements. You denied the enforceability of clickwrap agreements. You were wrong. LLaMA uses a clickwrap agreement. "By clicking 'I Accept' below or by using or distributing any portion or element of the Llama Materials, you agree to be bound by this Agreement." That agreement covers its output: "You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof)." Your hypotheticals about third parties are off-topic and have zero bearing on this conversation. The topic under discussion is whether it is logically "inconsistent" for Meta to claim its output is protected while other content is not. Those two positions are perfectly consistent in light of the fact that LLaMA output is protected by the terms of a clickwrap agreement.

danShumway 3y ago
Facebook absolutely factually does not have a clickwrap agreement over 3rd-party content generated with LLaMA; restrictions of users do not magically mean that output has its own universally enforceable EULA applied to everyone else. There is no interpretation of US contract law that says that 3rd-party data generated with LLaMA would be subject to LLaMA's license. There is no clickwrap agreement over LLaMA's output, and no legal precedent that argues that any restriction of LLaMA's usage would apply to 3rd-parties accessing that output. The output is not protected in the way you claim, and I fully stand by the fact that a clickwrap agreement over downloading LLaMA from Facebook would not be enforceable over people who did not download LLaMA and are merely using 3rd-party LLaMA output.

danShumway 3y ago

Facebook absolutely factually does not have a clickwrap agreement over 3rd-party content generated with LLaMA; restrictions of users do not magically mean that output has its own universally enforceable EULA applied to everyone else. There is no interpretation of US contract law that says that 3rd-party data generated with LLaMA would be subject to LLaMA's license. There is no clickwrap agreement over LLaMA's output, and no legal precedent that argues that any restriction of LLaMA's usage would apply to 3rd-parties accessing that output. The output is not protected in the way you claim, and I fully stand by the fact that a clickwrap agreement over downloading LLaMA from Facebook would not be enforceable over people who did not download LLaMA and are merely using 3rd-party LLaMA output.