5 ms·

> until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3

> until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3 had 700M+ customers need an extra licence to use it. It doesn’t say that you loose access to it if in the future you gain that many users.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
You don't lose access, but the free ride ends. It seems that new licence will include payment terms. Zuckerberg discusses this on the Dwarkesh interview.
- krisoft 3y ago
  What does the “free ride ends” mean? If you mean you can’t use the next model they might release after you have reached that many users, sure that might be true. It is not true that you have to pay for the already released llama 3. I don’t care what Zuckerberg says. I care what the licence says. I recommend you to read it. It is shorter and more approachable than the usual rental agreement of a flat.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
    Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license, which Meta may or may not choose to grant to you. It does not say what the terms of that new license will be, but if you are interested you can watch the Dwarkesh interview, or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license - you will pay. ** 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.
    - RexM 3y ago
      It seems pretty clear cut that it’s monthly active users when Llama 3 is released. > If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users … is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month … If that’s not true then the free license applies to you.
      - simonw 3y ago
        What happens if your startup is in negotiations to be acquired by a company that had more than 700m users before that date?
        krisoft 3y ago
        Now that I would argue puts you at a risk!
        HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
        Presumably megacorp's laywers are engaged with you doing due diligence before the acquisition, will be looking into this, and evaluating the license. Maybe they have prior licensing agreements with Meta, or plan to replace your use of Llama with something different, who knows. OTOH if you are being acquired by Elon Musk, then there may be no due diligence, he will tear up any existing license agreements, spend the next year bickering with Meta on Twitter, then be sued to comply.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. I agree too that this is the relevant section. > It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license It does not say that. It says that if you or your affiliate had 700M+ users on the day of llama3's release date then you need an other licence. This does not trigger if you just gain 700M+ users. Simply it does not. It does trigger if you become affiliated by someone who in that past date already had 700M+ (for example if google buys you up, or if you become a strategic partner of google). The key here is "on the Meta Llama 3 version release date" which sets the exact date for when the monthly active users of the products or services should be counted. > It does not say what the terms of that new license will be Correct. And I assume the terms would be highly onerous. That I do not dispute. > or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license I believe you on that. That is not what we disagree on. The bit we seem to disagree on is when exactly do you need this extra licence. You state that you need it if your company gains in a future date 700M+ users. That is simply not supported by the very section you quoted above.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago

You don't lose access, but the free ride ends. It seems that new licence will include payment terms. Zuckerberg discusses this on the Dwarkesh interview.

krisoft 3y ago
What does the “free ride ends” mean? If you mean you can’t use the next model they might release after you have reached that many users, sure that might be true. It is not true that you have to pay for the already released llama 3. I don’t care what Zuckerberg says. I care what the licence says. I recommend you to read it. It is shorter and more approachable than the usual rental agreement of a flat.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license, which Meta may or may not choose to grant to you. It does not say what the terms of that new license will be, but if you are interested you can watch the Dwarkesh interview, or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license - you will pay. ** 2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.
  - RexM 3y ago
    It seems pretty clear cut that it’s monthly active users when Llama 3 is released. > If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users … is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month … If that’s not true then the free license applies to you.
    - simonw 3y ago
      What happens if your startup is in negotiations to be acquired by a company that had more than 700m users before that date?
      - krisoft 3y ago
        Now that I would argue puts you at a risk!
      - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
        Presumably megacorp's laywers are engaged with you doing due diligence before the acquisition, will be looking into this, and evaluating the license. Maybe they have prior licensing agreements with Meta, or plan to replace your use of Llama with something different, who knows. OTOH if you are being acquired by Elon Musk, then there may be no due diligence, he will tear up any existing license agreements, spend the next year bickering with Meta on Twitter, then be sued to comply.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. I agree too that this is the relevant section. > It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license It does not say that. It says that if you or your affiliate had 700M+ users on the day of llama3's release date then you need an other licence. This does not trigger if you just gain 700M+ users. Simply it does not. It does trigger if you become affiliated by someone who in that past date already had 700M+ (for example if google buys you up, or if you become a strategic partner of google). The key here is "on the Meta Llama 3 version release date" which sets the exact date for when the monthly active users of the products or services should be counted. > It does not say what the terms of that new license will be Correct. And I assume the terms would be highly onerous. That I do not dispute. > or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license I believe you on that. That is not what we disagree on. The bit we seem to disagree on is when exactly do you need this extra licence. You state that you need it if your company gains in a future date 700M+ users. That is simply not supported by the very section you quoted above.