Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Setting the model license to OpenRail-M #63

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 7, 2023
Merged

Setting the model license to OpenRail-M #63

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 7, 2023

Conversation

brunosan
Copy link
Member

@brunosan brunosan commented Dec 3, 2023

This PR sets the license for Clay the model, which includes the embeddings, model file, and also propagates to all finetune applications or derivatives of embeddings.

As we said on #1 we are open source and open model.

Open Source has established standards that make it friction-free for downstream users to adopt the code we make. Hence we choose Apache, one of the most permissive licenses. There are new ML source licenses, but I'm not convinced there is enough value to adopt these less known options versus something much more widely known and adopted like Apache.

For Open models, the option that seems most permissive and standard, as identified by @weiji14, is OpenRail-M.

This PR sets the OpenRail-M as the license for our model. Some of the use restrictions seem meant for LLMs, but I rather change the minimum from the template, hence there are no modifications, expect the 3 lines at the top stating our name.

@brunosan brunosan mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2023
Copy link
Member

@yellowcap yellowcap left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is great, the only comment/question I would have is if this is the right way to place the license. I.e. is the starndard to have a LICENSE file that references the code, and a model-license file to specify for the model? Just wondering how people know what refers to what.

@weiji14
Copy link
Contributor

weiji14 commented Dec 6, 2023

Not sure what the standard is, but was wondering if renaming the file to LICENSE-MODEL.md (so that it is just below the current LICENSE) would be good?

@brunosan brunosan merged commit 12cc466 into main Dec 7, 2023
2 checks passed
@brunosan brunosan deleted the Model-license branch December 7, 2023 13:52
@danhammer
Copy link
Collaborator

@brunosan let's schedule a call on getting this done.

@brunosan
Copy link
Member Author

brunosan commented Dec 7, 2023

We talked, all good.

brunosan added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 27, 2023
* Create model-license.md

* [pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

* Rename model-license.md to LICENSE-MODEL.md

---------

Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants