undefined | Better HN

0 pointsapatheticonion2mo ago0 comments

I'm struggling to parse the double negative in that statement, haha.

Are you saying that you believe that untested but technically; models trained on GPL sources need to distribute the resulting LLMs under GPL?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

advael2mo ago· 2 in thread

Yes. Double negative intended for emphasis here, but apologies if it's confusing

eru2mo ago

Well, most companies never distribute their models. So GPL doesn't kick in.

vova_hn22mo ago

I think that the claim that they make is that once a model is "contaminated" with GPL code, every output it ever produces should be considered derived from GPL code, therefore GPL-licensed as well.

1 more reply

gottheUIblues2mo ago

If that theory holds - have to ensure that the models have not been trained on any code that is licensed incompatibly with the GPL, in which case the models could not be distributed at all

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse