Jean Louis PRO

Gemini's proprietary license is a deal-breaker. It's not just about performance—it's about freedom. Google's terms actively restrict libre use, while models like QwQ 32B and DeepSeek v3 (when properly licensed) respect user rights. Never conflate ethically-licensed AI with corporate traps that forbid modification, redistribution, or independent use.

Thanks so much for working on that. It's really good.

So you are talking about a data set, but you can't prevent it. If you put a data set for military usage, then what's wrong with that? I mean if you don't put it, that means that some countries would have a better data set and take advantage of it. But if you open source it, that means there is certain competition in the military market and then they may think twice or create better data sets. If they put it or not, it really doesn't matter because we have to change the consciousness of this society to get peace in the world. So this is not like it's okay. I appreciate your intentions and that's actually the way to go. But forbidding people to put it, it's not going to forbid the world. With forbidding we don't change consciousness of people about the peace in the world. Do you get me?

@JLouisBiz I have read your comment but it does not make any sense , what is the purpose of regulations and law if there is no limitations to what one can do.

I didn't speak about law on that level, but of licensing. And that is same opinion and same notion I have, leave it to the law to decide.

You can't limit people by telling them to nicely read the license and follow the guidelines on what you think it is ethical or moral. Nice people anyway behave nice, bad people don't listen.

We are not talking about chair here or any ordinary object for innocent usage, we are talking about war tech developement, are a chair and war tools that made primary for destruction and killing the same !!!?

Yes, and? There are numerous books written on that subject and available from many libraries including online. Information is accessible.

Please think deeper on what I said in my first paragraph in this message.

They are not , probably if compared it with a gun it might be more comparable , you can have a gun to protect yourself but you need a permission for possessing a gun as us citizen or you get arrested for possessing unathorized item, you ask why , to unsure public safety, but even with such procedure there still horrifying incident that happens, we are not talking about something similar to chair here, the analogy is poorly representitive of the present situation.

Sure, but it is not related to LLM licensing and free software.

And it is not about opensource and free software it is about not developing war tools.

I speak only related to Free Software.

And yes, it can and IS USED to develop war tools. It is also used for criminal purposes.

As you said it in the first paragraph, it is for the law to decide. Not for author.

Because nice software or LLM author(s) simply cannot prevent any war by placing some kind of "warnings", like please "it is forbidden to make war by using this LLM as tool". That is nonsense. You cannot enforce it. You cannot even know.

Keep it fully free software so that there are no doubts on how it can be used. There is reason for the freedom.

Knives are sold everyday and there is no warning on how to use it.

Take an example someone using their computer for piracy , cyber threats , scams fraudelent activities etcs., do you let them just go their way or some actions need be made to protect people , war tech are far worse than any thing mentioned earlier.

You or me, we are not crime hunter, and if we are, we have got our ways.

Crime hunting is not by limiting people how to use some software programs. It is simply not feasible. That approach is rather prone to accuse unjustly those people with good intentions.

Remember, no matter how many permissions a citizen may need to carry a gun, the bad guy doesn't care about it, and is going to get it so much easier than the nice guy.

I don't agree on that. Any kind of such limitations is making the model proprietary and that means it's going to enter into less space and is going to help less people on this planet. The truly free software or open source model like LLM should not be limited because there is no limitation how a user is supposed to use it. Everybody should be able to use it how they wish and want. Another issue is there is no way for the author or anybody else to find out who used it in a way how you or author think it wasn't appropriate.

Let's just compare it to the everyday objects we use in our life. Let's say a chair and a keyboard, monitor or desk. When you are buying it or getting it for free from someone, do you get some kind of limitation? Please, this is the chair but you are not allowed to use it inappropriately or sit inappropriately or use the chair for other purposes but sitting. You don't.

So please think about that. People can definitely use chair to kill somebody or a desk to destroy things including using keyboard or monitor to fight.

And now how is somebody going to use their computer and software? Leave that for them because that's the point of free software. They can use it as they wish.

And just remember there is no way for anybody to control how somebody on the other side of the planet is using it.

This means that appealing to the ethical sense of honest and ethical people doesn't need to be there because they are already honest and ethical. And appealing to the sense of in-honest people is anyway not going to work. So you can't ensure of that anyway.

What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

So read here and learn about the four free software freedoms.

I am using Nomic embed text and Nomic embed vision from the local API endpoint. In my opinion your package should be more flexible on how to generate embeddings because some people may use remote embeddings as well. What matters here much is that any kind of document can be ingested. Another question, did you maybe think of page numbers?

That sounds like the very needed thing. How can I use my own embedder?

Ollama? Takes more VRAM! It requires GGUF files, but they are anyway created by llama.cpp software, it is slower than llama.cpp, using models not published on ollama website requires user to think about it, configure, unlike llama.cpp

No way.

There is nothing to be proud of, you have based it on the proprietary model, disabling people to use it how they wish and want and totally disregarding free software principles. Why don't you take a good example from Microsoft IBM, Mistral or Allen AI, Qwen or DeepSeek companies which are distributing free software models?

Gemma License (danger) is not Free Software and is not Open Source
https://gnu.support/gnu-emacs/emacs-lisp/Gemma-License-danger-is-not-Free-Software-and-is-not-Open-Source.html

The Gemma Terms of Use and Prohibited Use Policy govern the use, modification, and distribution of Google's Gemma machine learning model and its derivatives. While Gemma is available for public use, it does not conform to Free Software or Open Source principles as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) or Open Source Initiative (OSI). The terms impose significant restrictions, including prohibited use cases (e.g., illegal, harmful, or malicious activities), requirements to enforce Google's use restrictions on downstream users, and limitations on redistribution and derived works. Additionally, the terms do not guarantee access to source code or the freedom to use the software for any purpose, and they include broad disclaimers of warranty and liability. As a result, Gemma is a proprietary model with limited permissions, rather than a truly free or open-source software offering.

What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html