You got a serious licensing problem
MahaMarathi 7B, is a domain adapted, continually pre-trained, and instruction fine-tuned native Marathi large language model (LLM) with 7 billion parameters based on Llama2+Mistral
Can you train it on some other model that is not based on Llama2?
As otherwise you are confusing end users and bringing in the legal trouble. Llama2 is not Open Source and not Free Software by definition. Changing license to MIT is a no go.
Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source
What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/osd
To fully understand the text, it's helpful to break it down into several key components: the terms used, the context, and the implications.
Key Terms and Concepts
End Users: These are the individuals who use a product or service. In the context of software, end users are the people who operate the software for various purposes, such as personal use or professional work.
Open Source: Open source software is software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance. Open source is characterized by its licenses, which allow users to freely use, modify, and distribute the software. The most common open source licenses include the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Apache License and various others.
Free Software: This term, often used interchangeably with open source, emphasizes the freedom to run, modify, and share software. The term was popularized by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Free software is defined by the freedoms it provides to users, not by its price.
Llama2: In this context, Llama2 seems to be a specific software product or project. It is not classified as open source or free software.
MIT License: The MIT License is a permissive free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is one of the most popular open source licenses. It allows users considerable freedom to use, modify, and distribute the software, often with minimal restrictions.
Context and Background
The text addresses a situation where there is a potential misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding the licensing of a software product called Llama2. Llama2 is neither open source nor free software by its current definition. This distinction is crucial because open source and free software come with specific rights and obligations that are defined by their respective licenses.
Significance and Implications
Legal Implications: By stating that Llama2 is "not Open Source and not Free Software by definition," the text implies that the current licensing of Llama2 does not provide the freedoms associated with these categories. This has legal implications, particularly in terms of what end users can and cannot do with the software. For example, they might not be able to modify or redistribute the software freely. But you are re-publishing under MIT license.
Confusion Among End Users: If users are led to believe that Llama2 is open source or free software when it is not, they might attempt to use, modify, or distribute it in ways that are not legally permitted. This could lead to confusion, frustration, or even legal disputes.
License Change to MIT: The text clearly states that changing Llama2's license to the MIT License is not an option ("a no go"). This suggests that there are constraints or decisions already made that prevent such a change. The MIT License would typically convert the software into open source, providing users with more freedoms, so the refusal to make this change indicates a deliberate choice to restrict those freedoms. But did you get permission from META to do so?
Potential Questions and Clarifications
- What happens if users mistakenly believe Llama2 is open source? They might infringe on the software's licensing terms, leading to potential legal action or disputes. This could damage the reputation of the developers or the META company behind Llama2.
Example for Illustration
Imagine a scenario where a company releases a software application called "Llama2" under a proprietary license. Users are told that they can use Llama2 for personal projects but cannot modify or redistribute it. If users mistakenly believe Llama2 is open source, they might start distributing modified versions, thinking they are within their rights. However, the proprietary license does not grant these rights, leading to potential legal issues.
Conclusion
The text emphasizes the importance of correctly understanding and communicating the licensing terms of software like Llama2. It highlights the potential legal and practical issues that arise when users are misled about the nature of the software's license. By clarifying that Llama2 is neither open source nor free software and that changing its license to MIT is not an option, the author underscores the restrictions and intentions behind Llama2's current licensing model.