Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jacooper | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

jacooper

What's the license

View on HN

CC BY-NC 4.0

I was trying to figure out what does it mean and this is the summary from Bard so take it with a grain of salt.

The CC BY-NC 4.0 license allows for the following uses of the licensed material:

* Reproduction: You can copy and distribute the licensed material in any medium or format.

* Distribution: You can distribute the licensed material to others.

* Public performance: You can perform the licensed material publicly.

* Public display: You can display the licensed material publicly.

* Modification: You can remix, transform, and build upon the licensed material.

* Derivative works: You can create derivative works based on the licensed material.

However, there are some restrictions on how you can use the licensed material under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license:

* Commercial use: You cannot use the licensed material for commercial purposes.

* Sublicensing: You cannot sublicense the licensed material.

* Moral rights: The licensor retains all moral rights in the licensed material.

Here are some examples of how the CC BY-NC 4.0 license can be used:

* A teacher can use a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed image in a presentation for their class.

* A student can create a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed remix of a song.

* A software developer can use a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed library in their open source project.

* A photographer can share their photos on a CC BY-NC 4.0 licensed website.

Please do not post output from LLMs here. It is against the rules and we have plenty of knowledgeable people to answer questions. We all have access to these chat bots if we want their answer.

Where is this against the rules?

To be fair to the op, prefacing as an LLM output was the right choice, and although I do have access to these same tools, it was nice to get a description and know possibly that it’s a little off the mark, but I’m further ahead than before.

To be fair to you, i agree. HN is probably the last place you want to use low-effort AI comments, regardless of how helpful they may be. Let’s leave the AI comments for Reddit.

You could just Google it: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Importantly, non-commercial. Almost all of Facebooks stuff used to be Apache, this new stance is really shitty of them and I hope limits adoption. Deigning to allow others to play with models (and make improvements, give feedback, build an ecosystem) that only you can profit from is not good community behavior. I'd rather see them make it freemium or paid if that's their goal, this is the equivalent of a kid licking a cookie so the others can't eat it.

> Almost all of Facebooks stuff used to be Apache, this new stance is really shitty of them and I hope limits adoption

The AI research environment has changed from the earlier default-open publication - unlike it's competitors, FAIR is still releasing model weights instead of serving the models behind an API.

> this is the equivalent of a kid licking a cookie so the others can't eat it.

More like the other kid baking a cookie with the words "Free Cookie" on it so others can eat it if they are hungry, but can't sell it for money. It'd be foolish for FAIR to donate preconfigured homing-missiles to OpenAI and others via one-way tech transfer.

  It'd be foolish for FAIR to donate preconfigured homing-missiles to OpenAI and others via one-way tech transfer.

No, they could GPL it, and I don't think they're worried about competition taking the models anyway, there's nothing particularly special about the weights or training data, just the compute. I think part of it is pressure from AI "safety" hangers-on who pretend that AI is dangerous so only those who don't want to abide by license terms should have unfettered access. The other commercial reasons are harder to understand. With pytorch they became the standard that everyone builds off of, they could do that with their recent AI, particularly LLaMA but they chose this silly route.

Also, LLaMA has a more permissive license than this translation one, and is a more powerful model, so I don't really see the "homing missiles to open AI" angle.

True, LLaMA2 is more like "donating homing missiles to everyone except OpenAI, Google, and Apple."

> [...] I don't think they're worried about competition taking the models anyway, there's nothing particularly special about the weights or training data, just the compute

If that is the case, then what do you suppose is the reason most researcher outfits stopped releasing model weights, or offer more restrictions when they do?

Using the GPL won't prevent the larger AI competitors from using your model outputs from tuning their non-public models to consistently beat yours, but a non-commercial clause does.

> Also, LLaMA has a more permissive license than this translation one, and is a more powerful model, so I don't really see the "homing missiles to open AI" angle.

LLaMa lags ChatGPT 4, but SeamlessM4T is ahead of WhisperX in some ways

I largely ignore the licenses on this stuff and use it for commercial purposes. If they want to sue me, let them. In fact, I dare them.

Their models are not copyrightable and I would not waste this opportunity to establish this fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com