3 ms·
I don't disagree but even Linux has "Terms and conditions" of usage under it's license you really need to dig into what those are. There's no doubt Gemma's lic
by staticman2 2y ago
I don't disagree but even Linux has "Terms and conditions" of usage under it's license you really need to dig into what those are.
There's no doubt Gemma's license is less permissive than other models and that it has less community finetuners for that reason.
- keheliya 2y agoAccording to the OSI's open source definition, you can't put restrictions against persons or groups or fields of use. In the license, Linux is not restricted in what domain it will be used (good or bad). Here's OSI's argument about this when Meta's llama put such limitations in their license: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- homarp 2y agocan you link to Linux terms and conditions? search returned nothing.
- balnaphone 2y agohttps://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
- staticman2 2y agoI guess my comment was a bit wrong, Linux has "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION" not usage.