The post states:
> One example where this requirement wasn't violated, is on build.nvidia.com
But built with llama isn't shown prominently, so this is actually an example of a violation of the license.
The post states:
> One example where this requirement wasn't violated, is on build.nvidia.com
But built with llama isn't shown prominently, so this is actually an example of a violation of the license.
That's just like, your opinion man. This entire discussion and blog post are purely a fun distraction, legal contracts don't work how programmers think they work. The only definition of "prominently" that matters is the one the judge rules on when Zuck sues you.
Meta is free to license Llama from Meta under a different license are they not?
Yes, but the post gives that as an example of what follows the license. So even if it's not illegal because nvidia has a different license, it doesn't follow as a good example.
Yeah, basically what I'm saying is that we can't even guarantee that it's an attempt at compliance with this specific license because it's a major corporation that may want to use the software under a different license negotiated privately.