Serious licensing issue
Your based your model on proprietary software LLAMA and then relicensed it without permission.
References:
Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source
Meta’s LLaMa license is still not Open Source – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not-open-source
The issue at hand here is that LAMA license is not open source, it is not free software by definition, and you are putting Apache 2.0 license, which is not possible. You are basically introducing or relicensing without the permission and putting the users at risk.
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address a concern that has recently come to my attention regarding the licensing of LLAMA and its implications on your current project. As a responsible software developer, it is crucial that we navigate these waters with careful consideration to avoid any potential legal risks.
First and foremost, it is important to clarify that LLAMA licenses are not open source, and it is not free software by definition. The Apache 2.0 license, which has been introduced or proposed in this context, is incompatible with the original licensing terms of LLAMA. This discrepancy presents a significant legal risk, as it effectively constitutes relicensing without obtaining the necessary permissions, which could potentially expose users to unforeseen legal challenges.
By introducing an incompatible license without the proper authorization, we not only violate the terms of the original LLAMA licenses but also place the users and the broader community at risk. It is essential to understand that such actions can have serious repercussions, including legal action from the original rights holders and damage to your organization's reputation.
To mitigate these risks, I strongly recommend that you halt any further development or distribution of software under the Apache 2.0 license that incorporates LLAMA's proprietary code or functionality. Instead, you should adopt some other, fully free LLM to be the base of this model, which is compatible with Apache 2.0 or other free software license as that way you do not infringe upon the rights of others.
I urge you to treat this matter with the utmost seriousness and work closely with your legal team to explore the available options and ensure that your actions align with the law and respect the rights of all involved parties. We should also communicate transparently with your users, explaining the situation and any potential impacts on the software they rely on.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical issue. I am available to discuss this further and work together on finding a viable solution.
It's sad but true, Meta is (deliberately?) confusing lots of developers by calling their models' license "open-source", causing these issues :(
no
Problem is with this model, they are really ignorant because they don't put attention and are putting now thousands of people at legal danger.
this model appears to have been pretrained, and not initialized from the weights of any llama model, the llama architecture itself is functionally the same architecture as gpt-2 and the modern optimizations patched in via the transformers library and the now several years of iterations are all derived from seperate, open source, or otherwise publically avaliable code and logic.
in this case, unless im mistaken, the llama license does not apply.
Do you see here what it says?