[skissane]

> but Command R is commercially licensed

It is licensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0. That license means you are free to use, modify and redistribute it, so long as you aren't doing so "commercially". What exactly counts as "commercial" use is a complex legal question, and the answer may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (different courts may interpret the phrase differently). But, for example, if you are just using it at home for private experimentation on your own personal time, with no plans to make money from doing so (whether now or in the future), I think pretty much everyone will agree that counts as "non-commercial".

Other cases – e.g., if a government agency uses the software to provide some government function, is that "non-commercial"? – are far less clear. Those are really the kind of questions you need to ask a lawyer (which I am not).

[ryao]

I am not a lawyer, but lately, I have been wondering whether the contra proferentem rule interacts with these licenses.

[column]

For anybody else not in the know : "Contra proferentem is a legal principle that suggests when there is ambiguity in the terms of a contract, the ambiguity should be resolved against the party that drafted the contract."

[skissane]

I think the correct answer to your question is almost certainly some combination of "it depends on the jurisdiction" and also (in many cases) "nobody can be entirely sure because no court has considered the issue yet"

There have been a handful of court decisions on what "non-commercial" use means – the Creative Commons legal case database records [0] records three cases involving non-commercial CC licenses in the US, one in Belgium, one in Israel, plus I also know of one in Germany [1] which their database seems to be missing. I don't know if any of them addressed the contra proferentem rule which you mention.

The German and US cases on this topic appear contradictory – from what I understand, the German case assumed that all government use is commercial, interpreting "non-commercial" to basically mean "private home use", whereas two of the US cases (Great Minds v FedEx Office and Great Minds v Office Depot) were about use by commercial entities acting under contract to public school districts, and the holdings of those cases assume that government-operated schools are "non-commercial" (and furthermore, the commercial entities were engaging in "non-commercial" use, even though they were acting commercially, because they were doing so on behalf of a "non-commercial" customer). That said, all these cases have somewhat limited precedential value – the US cases are binding precedent in two federal judicial circuits (2nd and 9th) but have merely persuasive value in the remainder of the US; I don't know what the ultimate outcome of the German case was (Deutschlandradio said they were going to appeal but I don't know if they did and what the outcome was if they did), and German law doesn't view precedent as "binding" in quite the same sense that common law systems do anyway

[0] https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/cases/?keywords=&tags%5B...

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2014/03/27/german-court-says-creati... and if you can read German, here is the actual court judgement: https://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/OLG-K%C3%B6ln-CC-NC-Entsch...

[refulgentis]

I have a weird problem where I want to charge per month for you to use my app that allows you to use N different paid models and any llama.cpp model you want. Im curious if you have any thoughts in what situation I'm in if it's one of 5 built in local options highlighted in the app

Morally I feel 100% fine because the app would be just as appealing without it, and subscribing means you get sync, you could theoretically not pay me and use Command R

[cyanydeez]

The His website tends to move towards things that can make money.

That's typically synonymous with commercial.