[kordlessagain]

A lot of times there can be a feeling of being wrong without it being intentional. In this case I think the mention of AWS being a partner shows intent to put value behind what they are doing for their stakeholders.

The license for Llama 2 is pretty intense, but mirrors that intent by limiting interactions with individuals at scale, as well as limiting anything learned from the model through inference in being used to train another model. I suspect this is because the dataset on which it was trained is the company's IP, which again is for the shareholder's benefit.

The code is open though, I think out of necessity. AI poses a significant challenge for our survival, and making it open is an indication of transparency. They still need to make money at what they do and charge people for using their IP, within reason.

I guess my question would be that, if I used Llama (not the code, but the model itself) to code up a new model, would that be a derivative work?

[8note]

Surely it's IP the shareholders have licensed, rather than their own IP.

Aka, my own comments being sublicensed back to me, after I licenced them to Facebook.