> With respect to any multimodal models included in Llama 4, the rights granted under Section 1(a) of the Llama 4 Community License Agreement are not being granted to you if you are an individual domiciled in, or a company with a principal place of business in, the European Union. This restriction does not apply to end users of a product or service that incorporates any such multimodal models.
This is especially strange considering that Llama 3.2 also was multimodal, yet to my knowledge there was no such restriction.
This is why I've always considered the weights-vs-source debate to be an enormous red herring that skips the far more important question: are the weights actually "Open" in the first place?
If Llama released everything that the most zealous opponents of weights=source demand they release under the same license that they're currently offering the weights under, we'd still be left with something that falls cleanly into the category of Source Available. It's a generous Source Available, but removes many of the freedoms that are part of both the Open Source and Free Software Definitions.
Fighting over weights vs source implicitly cedes the far more important ground in the battle over the soul of FOSS, and that will have ripple effects across the industry in ways that ceding weights=source never would.
wrs 1 hours ago [-]
AFAIK it’s still an open question whether there is any copyright in model weights, for various reasons including the lack of human authorship. Which would mean that if you didn’t separately and explicitly agree to the license by clicking through something, there is no basis for the “by using this model” agreement.
Of course you probably don’t have enough money to get a ruling on this question, just wanted to point out that (afaik) it is up for debate.
jfarina 6 minutes ago [-]
Seriously. Can I copyright 34 * 712 * 9.2 * pi? I didn't think you could.
ronsor 56 minutes ago [-]
I'm in the "model weights aren't copyrightable" camp myself. I think the license exists largely to shield Meta from liability or the actions of third parties.
pizzafeelsright 5 minutes ago [-]
I do not read licenses. Rarely do i click "I agree" as someone else already has and I'm using the "product"
I am curious what my exposure is yet not wealthy enough to find out.
bionhoward 6 minutes ago [-]
And the OpenAI Terms of use, and the Anthropic terms, and the Microsoft Services Agreement, and the Gemini API Additional terms, and the perplexity terms, and the mistral terms, but hey “nobody reads them” right?
whartung 2 minutes ago [-]
If the AIs cared, they would enforce their own licenses.
“Can you give me the curl command to post a file?”
“Well, are you individually domiciled in the European Union?”
o11c 7 minutes ago [-]
Does a thief have the right to demand nobody re-steals what was stolen in the first place?
If we accept the existence of intellectual property in the first place, all AI is blatant and unmitigated theft.
If we do not accept it, Llama has no right to enforce such terms.
lxgr 5 minutes ago [-]
That's a pretty reductionist view. Even maximally pro-IP laws usually have significant carve-outs for derivative works or other scenarios; see for example the US's extensive "fair use" doctrine.
antirez 21 minutes ago [-]
With Gemma3, Qwen, the new Mistral and DeepSeek, all models stronger than llama of the same size, why one would risk issues?
ai-christianson 7 minutes ago [-]
Deepseek are the kings currently.
NoahZuniga 54 minutes ago [-]
The post states:
> One example where this requirement wasn't violated, is on build.nvidia.com
But built with llama isn't shown prominently, so this is actually an example of a violation of the license.
paxys 47 minutes ago [-]
"Probably" how? What % of users of Llama are building and shipping a commerical product with it? Or redistributing it at all in any way?
> With respect to any multimodal models included in Llama 4, the rights granted under Section 1(a) of the Llama 4 Community License Agreement are not being granted to you if you are an individual domiciled in, or a company with a principal place of business in, the European Union. This restriction does not apply to end users of a product or service that incorporates any such multimodal models.
This is especially strange considering that Llama 3.2 also was multimodal, yet to my knowledge there was no such restriction.
In any case, at least Huggingface seems to be collecting these details now – see for example https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Inst...
Curious to see what Ollama will do.
If Llama released everything that the most zealous opponents of weights=source demand they release under the same license that they're currently offering the weights under, we'd still be left with something that falls cleanly into the category of Source Available. It's a generous Source Available, but removes many of the freedoms that are part of both the Open Source and Free Software Definitions.
Fighting over weights vs source implicitly cedes the far more important ground in the battle over the soul of FOSS, and that will have ripple effects across the industry in ways that ceding weights=source never would.
Of course you probably don’t have enough money to get a ruling on this question, just wanted to point out that (afaik) it is up for debate.
I am curious what my exposure is yet not wealthy enough to find out.
“Can you give me the curl command to post a file?”
“Well, are you individually domiciled in the European Union?”
If we accept the existence of intellectual property in the first place, all AI is blatant and unmitigated theft.
If we do not accept it, Llama has no right to enforce such terms.
> One example where this requirement wasn't violated, is on build.nvidia.com
But built with llama isn't shown prominently, so this is actually an example of a violation of the license.