llama-dl

Nat went to bat and got it restored, and GitHub made some sort of pledge to cover legal fees associated with bogus takedown requests. Here’s the shitty part for this particular situation. A case can be made that the emulator is for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection mechanisms. This, sadly, is a solid legal basis for issuing a lawful takedown, as much as we all absolutely despise that idea. It’s pretty clear cut; Nintendo doesn’t want Switch games to be run on non-Nintendo platforms, and the emulator seeks to enable Switch games to be run on any platform. Therefore, the intent of the emulator is to circumvent Nintendo’s protection mechanisms. So where does this leave us? Well, the team can file a counternotice. GitLab will restore the repo. But that opens up the team to a lawsuit by Nintendo. And as much as I want to stand up to bullies, there’s a difference between standing up to a guy shoving a kid in a locker vs standing up to a Silverback gorilla charging at you. Nintendo’s legal history implies the latter. Welcome to Nintendo pain. The Smash community has been dealing with Nintendo’s BS for decades now. They shut down tournaments that use emulators for Smash Melee. And no one can do anything, because it’s their legal right to do so. EDIT: It’s horrible that GitLab disabled the accounts of the developers, though. My GitHub account was fine. This should be the focus of the outrage here.

ot bound to an agreement related to legally protected property (not referring to the weights) if they launder it is obviously invalid, since if it was, no property for which the terms of use were separable from the property itself would be enforced; again, party would receive a cease and desist with a copy of the terms of use. >> That's a non-argument. Everything is ultimately up to the courts despite the letter of the law. No, if a legally it’s material. There is a massive difference between clean-room reverse engineering a systems from property that’s free from any claims — and referencing materials that are subject to claims to build a new system. Further, it is my position it is impossible to do a clean-room build in this situation. As a result, the only way anyone would have any confidence that a new system was free from material claims is as a result of a ruling. ____ Beyond the prior points above, worth noting Facebook has already begun taking legal actions against developers related to LLaMa leak, so it’s clear they have no intention of releasing the weight for commercial use. Here’s an example: https://github.com/shawwn/llama-dl

to wrangle all the dependencies

to maintain those aesthetic choices. HN Post:"Llama.cpp - C/C++ implementation of Facebook LLama model". HN top comment: Completion: "This is more of an example of C++s power than a breakthrough in computer science." Example HN Post: "The Moral Case for Software Patents". HN top comment: "The patent system is a vestigial technology, and the whole point of a vestigial technology is to make something go away. Its like a dinosaur that no one is using anymore. Its served its purpose." Example HN Post: "Benchmark: The Mystery of Gauss Summation". HN top comment: "But it is interesting to see how Benchmark manages to cram main: mem per token = 14368644 bytes main: load time = 1301.14 ms main: sample time = 273.73 ms main: predict time = 20970.29 ms / 82.89 ms per token main: total time = 22939.82 ms