It is proprietary
Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative:
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source
I don't care for META, I am talking to you, when you release proprietary LLM...
There are consequences which you did not think of.
What if you really make a great model that everybody wants to have? But then large company says "let us have it" and offer you some money for support, just to find out that it would impact their business negatively because they got too many users? That is LLama 3.2 license restriction.
Users are granted a non-exclusive license with limited rights to use, modify and distribute the Llama Materials under certain conditions. Meta retains significant ownership and control over its intellectual property.
Why would you "credit META platform"? While it is nice to do, it is ridiculous to enforce it.
Why would you be providing millions of free advertising to META? Qwen, Microsoft, IBM, DeepSeek, AllenAI and Mistral, and many others who provide excellent LLMs do not ask you for that.
You are opening door that META sues you or your users. That sounds like a like of thinking of future consequences.
If you breach the agreement, penalties could include damages far exceeding what might be considered reasonable under ordinary circumstances.
So you maybe wish to keep it in the small size, never intending to enter into penalties and court cases, but you can't know! Because other users may be taking it from your modified model, and things can get complicated.
In fact, there is no limit to damages Meta could seek. This is a clear attempt by Meta to deter breaches and to ensure users understand the gravity of violating the terms of this agreement.
Would you deal with someone like that who would come to your place, and tell you, here is the car, drive it, use it, inspect it, but hey, if you make mistake in driving, you are going to get penalized to maximum.
Would you like dealing with such people?
If you sue Meta Platforms or its related entities over allegations that any output of the Llama materials violates any intellectual property rights you may hold, you risk losing the license granted by the terms of the contract.
The agreement is subject to the legal system of California and disputes will be resolved by California courts. Users must understand that they are entering into a binding international agreement that might not align with their local laws.
META can abuse companies and individuals worldwide, just by calling them to court, and if they can't attend, they get default judgment in their favor.
The implications for users of proprietary LLMs like the Llama 3.2 are significant:
Freedom of Use: Users are granted freedom within certain boundaries—not to the extent that they would consider ownership of the software or the freedom to change license terms unilaterally.
Profitability: For commercial users, profits can become conditional upon achieving a certain threshold of success, which implies a need to stay within the bounds of the agreement to ensure rights to continue using the model.
Commercial Boundaries: If you’re planning to leverage Llama materials in any commercial product or service, you need to closely adhere to the agreement terms. Deviation may expose your venture to financial penalties or require you to seek explicit permission from Meta Platforms in a timely manner.
Intellectual Property: There's a clear expectation that derivative works and contributions to the success of Meta’s LLM technology are to be recognized and credited as per the agreement, reflecting a form of compensation or acknowledgment to the source provider.
It is very important for anyone interacting with such agreements to consult with a legal expert to understand the impact on their operations fully and to determine how best to navigate the complexities associated with such licenses.
