Licence clarification

[Oracen]

Issue:
Currently this library is doing the rounds on social media, being marketed as the "open source GPT". Your branding likewise is pointedly inferring open source. But without an explicit licence, this software falls under copyright per https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1720/what-can-i-assume-if-a-publicly-published-project-has-no-license

I searched through the repo, and there was no mention of a licence anywhere in the code. I'm hoping this is just an unfortunate oversight.

Steps to replicate:
Nil

Resolution:
Explicit LICENCE added to the root directory, clarifying how other people/companies can use/repurpose your code

Willing to submit a PR?
Yes, but I absolutely should not be the one making that call lol

Thanks guys

[vsemecky]

I think the license isn't there on purpose because it's unclear.

But the license should be there anyway, even at the cost of having code under a different license than the models, or even different parts of the code under different licenses.

[mudler]

right, I was wondering the same here - also, how the model can be really public? Isn't a finetune from LLaMA weights/checkpoints? possibly this is against their license

[bmschmidt]

The license on the code in this repo is officially MIT. Note that this is a license for the code in this repo only, and that the models (which are not distributed in this repo) have their own licenses.

1bbe9b6

[mudler]

For the codebase, sure, but providing links here that are models based on a non-permissive license could violate dmca.