3 ms·

What's the license

by jacooper 3y ago

What's the license

minimaxir 3y ago
CC BY-NC 4.0
- noiseinvacuum 3y ago
  I was trying to figure out what does it mean and this is the summary from Bard so take it with a grain of salt. The CC BY-NC 4.0 license allows for the following uses of the licensed material: * Reproduction: You can copy and distribute the licensed material in any medium or format. * Distribution: You can distribute the licensed material to others. * Public performance: You can perform the licensed material publicly. * Public display: You can display the licensed material publicly. * Modification: You can remix, transform, and build upon the licensed material. * Derivative works: You can create derivative works based on the licensed material. However, there are some restrictions on how you can use the licensed material under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license: * Commercial use: You cannot use the licensed material for commercial purposes. * Sublicensing: You cannot sublicense the licensed material. * Moral rights: The licensor retains all moral rights in the licensed material. Here are some examples of how the CC BY-NC 4.0 license can be used: * A teacher can use a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed image in a presentation for their class. * A student can create a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed remix of a song. * A software developer can use a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed library in their open source project. * A photographer can share their photos on a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed website.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Please do not post output from LLMs here. It is against the rules and we have plenty of knowledgeable people to answer questions. We all have access to these chat bots if we want their answer.
    - wilg 3y ago
      Where is this against the rules?
    - soultrees 3y ago
      To be fair to the op, prefacing as an LLM output was the right choice, and although I do have access to these same tools, it was nice to get a description and know possibly that it’s a little off the mark, but I’m further ahead than before. To be fair to you, i agree. HN is probably the last place you want to use low-effort AI comments, regardless of how helpful they may be. Let’s leave the AI comments for Reddit.
  - minimaxir 3y ago
    You could just Google it: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- version_five 3y ago
  Importantly, non-commercial. Almost all of Facebooks stuff used to be Apache, this new stance is really shitty of them and I hope limits adoption. Deigning to allow others to play with models (and make improvements, give feedback, build an ecosystem) that only you can profit from is not good community behavior. I'd rather see them make it freemium or paid if that's their goal, this is the equivalent of a kid licking a cookie so the others can't eat it.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Almost all of Facebooks stuff used to be Apache, this new stance is really shitty of them and I hope limits adoption The AI research environment has changed from the earlier default-open publication - unlike it's competitors, FAIR is still releasing model weights instead of serving the models behind an API. > this is the equivalent of a kid licking a cookie so the others can't eat it. More like the other kid baking a cookie with the words "Free Cookie" on it so others can eat it if they are hungry, but can't sell it for money. It'd be foolish for FAIR to donate preconfigured homing-missiles to OpenAI and others via one-way tech transfer.
    - version_five 3y ago
      It'd be foolish for FAIR to donate preconfigured homing-missiles to OpenAI and others via one-way tech transfer. No, they could GPL it, and I don't think they're worried about competition taking the models anyway, there's nothing particularly special about the weights or training data, just the compute. I think part of it is pressure from AI "safety" hangers-on who pretend that AI is dangerous so only those who don't want to abide by license terms should have unfettered access. The other commercial reasons are harder to understand. With pytorch they became the standard that everyone builds off of, they could do that with their recent AI, particularly LLaMA but they chose this silly route. Also, LLaMA has a more permissive license than this translation one, and is a more powerful model, so I don't really see the "homing missiles to open AI" angle.
      - taneq 3y ago
        True, LLaMA2 is more like "donating homing missiles to everyone except OpenAI, Google, and Apple."

What's the license

minimaxir 3y ago

CC BY-NC 4.0

noiseinvacuum 3y ago
I was trying to figure out what does it mean and this is the summary from Bard so take it with a grain of salt. The CC BY-NC 4.0 license allows for the following uses of the licensed material: * Reproduction: You can copy and distribute the licensed material in any medium or format. * Distribution: You can distribute the licensed material to others. * Public performance: You can perform the licensed material publicly. * Public display: You can display the licensed material publicly. * Modification: You can remix, transform, and build upon the licensed material. * Derivative works: You can create derivative works based on the licensed material. However, there are some restrictions on how you can use the licensed material under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license: * Commercial use: You cannot use the licensed material for commercial purposes. * Sublicensing: You cannot sublicense the licensed material. * Moral rights: The licensor retains all moral rights in the licensed material. Here are some examples of how the CC BY-NC 4.0 license can be used: * A teacher can use a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed image in a presentation for their class. * A student can create a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed remix of a song. * A software developer can use a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed library in their open source project. * A photographer can share their photos on a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed website.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Please do not post output from LLMs here. It is against the rules and we have plenty of knowledgeable people to answer questions. We all have access to these chat bots if we want their answer.
  - wilg 3y ago
    Where is this against the rules?
  - soultrees 3y ago
    To be fair to the op, prefacing as an LLM output was the right choice, and although I do have access to these same tools, it was nice to get a description and know possibly that it’s a little off the mark, but I’m further ahead than before. To be fair to you, i agree. HN is probably the last place you want to use low-effort AI comments, regardless of how helpful they may be. Let’s leave the AI comments for Reddit.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  You could just Google it: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
version_five 3y ago
Importantly, non-commercial. Almost all of Facebooks stuff used to be Apache, this new stance is really shitty of them and I hope limits adoption. Deigning to allow others to play with models (and make improvements, give feedback, build an ecosystem) that only you can profit from is not good community behavior. I'd rather see them make it freemium or paid if that's their goal, this is the equivalent of a kid licking a cookie so the others can't eat it.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Almost all of Facebooks stuff used to be Apache, this new stance is really shitty of them and I hope limits adoption The AI research environment has changed from the earlier default-open publication - unlike it's competitors, FAIR is still releasing model weights instead of serving the models behind an API. > this is the equivalent of a kid licking a cookie so the others can't eat it. More like the other kid baking a cookie with the words "Free Cookie" on it so others can eat it if they are hungry, but can't sell it for money. It'd be foolish for FAIR to donate preconfigured homing-missiles to OpenAI and others via one-way tech transfer.
  - version_five 3y ago
    It'd be foolish for FAIR to donate preconfigured homing-missiles to OpenAI and others via one-way tech transfer. No, they could GPL it, and I don't think they're worried about competition taking the models anyway, there's nothing particularly special about the weights or training data, just the compute. I think part of it is pressure from AI "safety" hangers-on who pretend that AI is dangerous so only those who don't want to abide by license terms should have unfettered access. The other commercial reasons are harder to understand. With pytorch they became the standard that everyone builds off of, they could do that with their recent AI, particularly LLaMA but they chose this silly route. Also, LLaMA has a more permissive license than this translation one, and is a more powerful model, so I don't really see the "homing missiles to open AI" angle.
    - taneq 3y ago
      True, LLaMA2 is more like "donating homing missiles to everyone except OpenAI, Google, and Apple."