4 ms·

Are licenses that can be altered after the fact even legal? Feels like more companies would use them if it was...

Domenic_S 2y ago
A large company I work for declined to buy licenses from a supplier that had this clause. From my understanding it's not really legal - or at worst it's a gray area - but the language is just too risky if you're not looking to be the test case in court.
- taneq 2y ago
  Exactly. It’s not about whether it’s enforceable, it’s about the fact that a sketchy license indicates that they might not always operate in good faith.
tptacek 2y ago
Why wouldn't they be? The starting presumption for a new work is that you have no permission to use it at all.
- xmprt 2y ago
  I suppose a better question would be "how drastic can the change be to the license?" because by adding that term, you're basically superseding every other term on the license. How do licenses deal with contradictory terms if that's even possible?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The license is explicit that it can be updated unilaterally. Nobody can adopt this software and claim not to know that's a possibility. There are attorneys specializing in open source licenses who comment on HN regularly, and maybe they'll surprise us, but, as a non-lawyer nerding out on this stuff I put all my chips down on "this is legally fine".
    - gitfan86 2y ago
      Judges don't enforce bad contracts. Imagine if a landlord sued a tenant after 1 year for a new roof of an apartment because the contract stated that "tenant will be responsible for all repairs" but the tenant pointed out that the contract also said "the house is in perfect and new condition". Both things cannot be true, so the judge throws it out. Same thing here, you can't grant someone a license to use something and then immediately say, "You can't use this without checking with us first" it is contradictory.
    - xmprt 2y ago
      The two reasons I think it's not that black and white is: 1. This brings up the question of being able to agree to a contract before the contract is written which makes no sense. 2. If it's legal then why don't all companies do it. Instead, companies like Google regularly put out updated terms of service which you have to agree to before continuing to use their service. Often times you don't realize it because it's just another checkbox or button to click before signing in.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        There are all sorts of contracts that can be unilaterally terminated.
- TrueDuality 2y ago
  It unfortunately isn't worded that it only affects new usage. If you needed to check once before your initial use that would be shady but unquestionably legal as the terms of the contract are clear when you are entering into the agreement. This clause allows them to arbitrarily change the contract with you at will, with no notice. That _shouldn't_ be enforceable but AFAIK that kind of contract has never been tested. It is _likely_ unenforceable though.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Why shouldn't that be enforceable? "Permission to use this software may be withdrawn at any time" seems like it would be an enforceable clause; why would this be less so?
    - worldsayshi 2y ago
      How about you use my service once now and in the future I might decide that the cost of that usage should be double?
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Then you stop using the service.
gitfan86 2y ago
Yes and No. If the full text of the license is "You must contact us for written approval before doing anything with this product" then yes that can be enforced. But a document like this which basically has a bunch of words followed by a "Just kidding" line, are not enforceable, because it contradicts the previous language. A judge would throw the whole thing out because it doesn't meet the standard of a contract.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Which matters because training an LLM very likely is not protected by copyright. While for a copyrighted work the default is that you can’t use it unless you have a valid license, for an LLM the default is that you can use it unless you have signed a contract restricting what you can do in return for some consideration. I don’t think these contracts are designed to be enforced because an attempt to enforce it would reveal it to be hot air, they are just there to scare people into compliance. Better to download LLMs from unofficial sources to avoid attempted contract shenanigans.
  - drited 2y ago
    Do you inspect the files manually or with a tool if you download from unofficial sources as a verification?

A large company I work for declined to buy licenses from a supplier that had this clause. From my understanding it's not really legal - or at worst it's a gray area - but the language is just too risky if you're not looking to be the test case in court.

taneq 2y ago
Exactly. It’s not about whether it’s enforceable, it’s about the fact that a sketchy license indicates that they might not always operate in good faith.

tptacek 2y ago

Why wouldn't they be? The starting presumption for a new work is that you have no permission to use it at all.

xmprt 2y ago
I suppose a better question would be "how drastic can the change be to the license?" because by adding that term, you're basically superseding every other term on the license. How do licenses deal with contradictory terms if that's even possible?
- tptacek 2y ago
  The license is explicit that it can be updated unilaterally. Nobody can adopt this software and claim not to know that's a possibility. There are attorneys specializing in open source licenses who comment on HN regularly, and maybe they'll surprise us, but, as a non-lawyer nerding out on this stuff I put all my chips down on "this is legally fine".
  - gitfan86 2y ago
    Judges don't enforce bad contracts. Imagine if a landlord sued a tenant after 1 year for a new roof of an apartment because the contract stated that "tenant will be responsible for all repairs" but the tenant pointed out that the contract also said "the house is in perfect and new condition". Both things cannot be true, so the judge throws it out. Same thing here, you can't grant someone a license to use something and then immediately say, "You can't use this without checking with us first" it is contradictory.
  - xmprt 2y ago
    The two reasons I think it's not that black and white is: 1. This brings up the question of being able to agree to a contract before the contract is written which makes no sense. 2. If it's legal then why don't all companies do it. Instead, companies like Google regularly put out updated terms of service which you have to agree to before continuing to use their service. Often times you don't realize it because it's just another checkbox or button to click before signing in.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      There are all sorts of contracts that can be unilaterally terminated.
TrueDuality 2y ago
It unfortunately isn't worded that it only affects new usage. If you needed to check once before your initial use that would be shady but unquestionably legal as the terms of the contract are clear when you are entering into the agreement. This clause allows them to arbitrarily change the contract with you at will, with no notice. That _shouldn't_ be enforceable but AFAIK that kind of contract has never been tested. It is _likely_ unenforceable though.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Why shouldn't that be enforceable? "Permission to use this software may be withdrawn at any time" seems like it would be an enforceable clause; why would this be less so?
  - worldsayshi 2y ago
    How about you use my service once now and in the future I might decide that the cost of that usage should be double?
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Then you stop using the service.

gitfan86 2y ago

Yes and No. If the full text of the license is "You must contact us for written approval before doing anything with this product" then yes that can be enforced. But a document like this which basically has a bunch of words followed by a "Just kidding" line, are not enforceable, because it contradicts the previous language. A judge would throw the whole thing out because it doesn't meet the standard of a contract.

zarzavat 2y ago
Which matters because training an LLM very likely is not protected by copyright. While for a copyrighted work the default is that you can’t use it unless you have a valid license, for an LLM the default is that you can use it unless you have signed a contract restricting what you can do in return for some consideration. I don’t think these contracts are designed to be enforced because an attempt to enforce it would reveal it to be hot air, they are just there to scare people into compliance. Better to download LLMs from unofficial sources to avoid attempted contract shenanigans.
- drited 2y ago
  Do you inspect the files manually or with a tool if you download from unofficial sources as a verification?