[jerbear4328]

I read that as "NVIDIA encourages you to be ethical and prohibits breaking the law. That doesn't seem so bad to me. What is bad, however, is section 2.1.

> 2.1 ... If You institute ... litigation against any entity ... alleging that the Model or a Derivative Model constitutes direct or contributory copyright or patent infringement, then any licenses granted to You under this Agreement for that Model or Derivative Model will terminate...

If you sue or file a copyright claim that the model violates copyright, you lose your license to use the model. That's a really weird restriction, I'm not sure what the point is.

[bcatanzaro]

The point is: if you sue claiming this model breaks the law, you lose your license to use it.

Apache 2.0 has a similar restriction: “ If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.”

[orra]

True, although it's unusual to see it for copyright not patents.

That said, the far bigger issue is the end of the same clause 2.1:

> NVIDIA may update this Agreement to comply with legal and regulatory requirements at any time and You agree to either comply with any updated license or cease Your copying, use, and distribution of the Model and any Derivative Model

[jerbear4328]

Oh, I didn't realize that it was a standard term. I'm sure there's a good motivation then, it doesn't seem so bad.

[sebzim4500]

Sounds reasonable to me. If you are going to claim in court the the model is illegal then why exactly are you using it?