Hugging Face's logo

tiiuae
/
Falcon3-1B-Base

Text Generation
Transformers
Safetensors
llama
falcon3
text-generation-inference
Inference Endpoints
Model card Files Community
12

Falcon LLM is proprietary license, while deceptfully advertised as "Open Source"

#12
by JLouisBiz - opened
Discussion
JLouisBiz

The TII Falcon LLM License Version 1.0 is not conformant to the definition of a free software license as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Here's why:

Key Issues with the License:

  1. Royalty Obligations for Commercial Use:

    • The license imposes royalty payments on Commercial Users (Section 8). Specifically, if a Commercial User generates revenue exceeding $1 million from the use of Falcon LLM or its derivatives, they must pay a percentage (defaulting to 10%) of the revenue exceeding that threshold to TII.
    • This requirement is incompatible with the freedom to use software for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without financial obligations to the original licensor. Both the FSF and OSI explicitly reject licenses that impose such restrictions.

  2. Restrictions on Distribution:

    • While the license allows redistribution of the Work and Derivative Works, it imposes additional conditions on Commercial Users (Section 4.2). These users can add their own copyright statements and license terms for their modifications, but non-commercial users must distribute Derivative Works under the same unmodified license (Section 4.3).
    • This creates a dual-licensing structure that is not consistent with the principles of free and open-source software, which require that the same freedoms be granted to all users, regardless of their use case.

  3. Attribution and Publicity Requirements:

    • The license requires prominent attribution to TII and Falcon LLM in any public statements about Derivative Works (Section 5). While attribution is common in open-source licenses, the specific phrasing and prominence requirements here go beyond typical norms and could be seen as restrictive.

  4. No Guarantee of Source Code Availability:

    • The license allows TII to distribute Falcon LLM in Object form only (Section 1, definition of "Falcon LLM"). This means users may not have access to the source code, which is a fundamental requirement for free software. While Derivative Works must provide both Source and Object forms (Section 4.3(b)), this does not apply to the original Falcon LLM itself.

Comparison with Free Software Principles:

  • FSF's Four Freedoms:

    1. Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
    2. Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works and change it to make it do what you wish.
    3. Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
    4. Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

    The TII Falcon LLM License violates Freedom 0 by imposing royalty obligations on commercial use and Freedom 1 by not guaranteeing access to the source code of the original Falcon LLM.

  • OSI's Open Source Definition:
    The license fails to meet several criteria of the OSI's Open Source Definition, including:

    • No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The royalty obligations discriminate against commercial use.
    • Free Redistribution: The license restricts redistribution by imposing financial obligations on commercial users.
    • Source Code: The license does not guarantee access to the source code of the original Falcon LLM.

Conclusion:

The TII Falcon LLM License is not a free software license under the definitions of the FSF or OSI. It imposes restrictions on commercial use, requires royalty payments, and does not guarantee access to the source code of the original work. While it shares some similarities with the Apache License 2.0, the additional terms and conditions make it incompatible with the principles of free and open-source software.

Suggestions:

  1. Stop deceiving free software community and remove "Open Source" from your advertising, or

  2. Do the humanity better option and truly release it as Free Software and Open Source like Microsoft did with MIT license, or Qwen with Apache, even IBM.

In general, why do you as organization found it proper to deceive users of "Open Source" while actually creating legal troubles to them with your proprietary license?

References

falcon-40b/LICENSE.txt at main · Decentralised-AI/falcon-40b:
https://github.com/Decentralised-AI/falcon-40b/blob/main/LICENSE.txt

The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative:
https://opensource.org/osd

Word "Open" as in "Open Source" - Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

Are you doing same as META?

Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative:
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source

Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Sign up or log in to comment