Contradictory licensing terms
GOVERNING TERMS: Your use of this model is governed by the NVIDIA Open Model License.
Additional Information: Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement. Built with Llama.
Those are contradictory licensing terms, they do not fit together. Nvidia Open Model License is not compatible with the Llama 3.3, so what is your point in doing such a confusion?
Users should comply with both licenses. NVIDIA has modified a Llama 3.3 model and is including that license as required by the Llama Community Model License. NVIDIA releases its IP embodied in the Llama Nemotron model under the NVIDIA Open Model License.
Are you attorney?
Did you understand implication I have pointed out?
My response above is a verbatim response from NVIDIA legal team to your question.
In that case, then the NVIDIA legal team is then either:
- Not aware of the meanings of licenses; or
- Not competent;
- Or both
- Or maybe ignorant?
Analysis of the Licensing Situation
1. Is it legally possible to change the original Llama license and publish it under the NVIDIA Open Model License?
Original Llama License: The Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement grants specific rights to use, reproduce, distribute, and modify the Llama Materials, but it imposes certain conditions, such as attribution, redistribution requirements, and restrictions on commercial use for entities with over 700 million monthly active users. The license does not explicitly allow for relicensing the Llama Materials under a different license.
NVIDIA Open Model License: This license is more permissive, allowing commercial use, creation of derivative works, and distribution without the same restrictions as the Llama license. However, it requires compliance with NVIDIA's terms, including attribution and adherence to AI ethics guidelines.
Legality of Relicensing:
- Copyright Law: Under copyright law, the original copyright holder (Meta, in the case of Llama) has exclusive rights to distribute, modify, and license the work. If NVIDIA has not obtained explicit permission from Meta to relicense the Llama Materials under the NVIDIA Open Model License, doing so would likely violate Meta's copyright.
- License Compatibility: The Llama license does not appear to allow sublicensing or relicensing of the Llama Materials under a different license. Therefore, NVIDIA cannot unilaterally change the license terms for the Llama Materials without Meta's consent.
Conclusion: It is not legally permissible for NVIDIA to relicense the Llama Materials under the NVIDIA Open Model License without explicit permission from Meta.
2. Is there any conflict between the two licenses?
Attribution Requirements: Both licenses require attribution, but the specific requirements differ. The Llama license mandates displaying "Built with Llama" and including a specific notice, while the NVIDIA license requires attribution to NVIDIA and inclusion of a notice file. Users would need to comply with both sets of attribution requirements, which could be cumbersome but not necessarily conflicting.
Commercial Use Restrictions: The Llama license imposes additional restrictions on commercial use for entities with over 700 million monthly active users, requiring them to obtain a separate license from Meta. The NVIDIA license does not have this restriction, which could create a conflict for large entities using the NVIDIA model based on Llama.
Derivative Works: Both licenses allow for the creation of derivative works, but the Llama license requires that derivative works include "Llama" in the model name, while the NVIDIA license does not impose such a requirement. This could lead to confusion or conflicts in naming conventions.
Termination Clauses: Both licenses have termination clauses related to litigation. If a user initiates litigation against Meta or NVIDIA, their rights under the respective licenses could be terminated. This could create a situation where a user loses rights under one license but retains them under the other, leading to legal uncertainty.
Conclusion: There are potential conflicts between the two licenses, particularly regarding commercial use restrictions, attribution requirements, and termination clauses. Users would need to carefully navigate these conflicts to ensure compliance with both licenses.
3. What is the possible risk for users using the model that has been re-licensed?
Legal Risk: If NVIDIA has not obtained proper permission from Meta to relicense the Llama Materials, users of the NVIDIA model could be at risk of copyright infringement claims from Meta. This could result in legal action, including injunctions, damages, or the requirement to cease using the model.
Compliance Burden: Users would need to comply with both the Llama license and the NVIDIA Open Model License, which could be complex and time-consuming. Failure to comply with either license could result in termination of rights or legal action.
Uncertainty in Licensing Terms: The dual licensing approach creates uncertainty about which terms apply in specific situations. For example, if a user is a large entity with over 700 million monthly active users, it is unclear whether they need to obtain a separate license from Meta or if the NVIDIA license alone suffices.
Reputational Risk: If it is later determined that NVIDIA did not have the right to relicense the Llama Materials, users of the NVIDIA model could face reputational damage for being associated with a potentially infringing product.
Conclusion: Users of the NVIDIA model based on Llama face significant legal, compliance, and reputational risks due to the potential for copyright infringement claims, the complexity of complying with two licenses, and the uncertainty surrounding the licensing terms.
Final Summary
- Legality of Relicensing: NVIDIA cannot legally relicense the Llama Materials under the NVIDIA Open Model License without Meta's explicit permission.
- Conflicts Between Licenses: There are potential conflicts between the Llama license and the NVIDIA Open Model License, particularly regarding commercial use restrictions, attribution requirements, and termination clauses.
- Risks for Users: Users of the NVIDIA model based on Llama face legal, compliance, and reputational risks due to potential copyright infringement claims, the complexity of complying with two licenses, and uncertainty in licensing terms.
Users should exercise caution and seek legal advice before using the NVIDIA model based on Llama, especially if they are large entities or plan to use the model for commercial purposes.
And this guys is why you go study to be a lawyer instead instead of using ChatGPT to fight your legal cases, it makes you look dumber than you might are.
In discussing communication, it's important to highlight that what truly matters is the subject of the conversation. While large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools for generating text, they do not inherently change the core subject matter being communicated. The LLM serves as a medium, helping to articulate thoughts and convey messages, but the significance of the subject remains paramount in any meaningful exchange. Whether it's legal advice or casual dialogue, the essence of communication lies in the subject and its effective conveyance, independent of the technology used to generate the accompanying text.
Find some more coherent response to my statements.