I just got here from Hacker News, and it said "Truly Open" but then I am forced to give my personal information to get Apache-2.0 model, makes no sense
I came here from Hacker News expecting a “Truly Open” Apache-2.0 model, yet the moment I try to download I’m confronted with a mandatory form demanding my full name, email, company, and phone number—this is neither open nor compliant with the spirit of Apache-2.0, so please remove the gate-keeping form and let me grab the weights anonymously like every other genuinely open project.
we hear you, but we can't change this alone. great if more people weigh in and give support & evidence to vouch for more relaxed usage terms. note that llama license vs pure apache 2 is a similar discussion
on the positive side, note that even now, anyone can re-share our model under pure apache 2, no need to re-attach any gating or terms. this is useful for quantizations or even copies, which are already available plenty by the community
Any more context on why the model is gated? Which organization is enforcing this?
closing for now, until we have some additional update to share from ETH/EPFL side