[ssddanbrown]

Just a warning, the license [1] specifically blocks EU use:

> 3. Conditions for License Grant. You represent and warrant that You will not, access, download, install, run, deploy, integrate, modify, or otherwise use the Model, directly or indirectly, within the European Union.

[1] https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model/blob/ma...

[p2detar]

What’s the reason behind this? What am I missing?

[Iolaum]

Most likely EU AI act regulations they don't see any value in bothering with.

[worldsavior]

The company is Chinese, I presume that's why.

[johnisgood]

And who thinks that, for even a second, that an European (in this case) will not download, install, and try to run this just because the LICENSE says you can't?

FYI, this is not intended to be offensive to Europeans, I am European myself. That is not the point. The point is, who gives a damn about the LICENSE in reality, on their PERSONAL computer? Serious question.

[viraptor]

The licence is not there for enforcement from their side. It's a legal protection for Huawei. Essentially "We told you it's not for the EU. If you get sued don't try to put it on us."

Also any company of a serious size will have lawyers interested in licences of everything you're running.

[Quarrel]

For those that would not remember, this was a real thing in the late 80s and 90s relating the cryptography.

There were serious laws limiting the export a "modern" cryptography software from the USA.

Some of us had to face up to the serious challenge of connecting to an FTP server and downloading PGP and risking violating US law to download a software package.

A few years later we had to decide "Do you want the secure Netscape, or the insecure Netscape?".

I'm sure we all chose the ethical choice.

[coldtea]

Legalese and licenses aren't to make sure no X will download/install/or run something.

It's to make it a matter of legal record that you stated they should abstain.

Copyright warnings on music and DVDs never stopped people pirating them either.

[coliveira]

I wonder if you'd say the same if the license were coming from Microsoft of Apple...

[randomNumber7]

A lot of companies and research institutes in the EU would like to be able to use a locally hosted LLM for their employees so they don't have to worry what data they give away.

They will certainly not violate EU laws and also probably not the licence.

[Arnt]

It's plausible deniability. Someone at Huawei presumably thinks there's a chance that exporting this to Europe might be a legal problem at some point in the future. So they added a restriction, enough for plausible deniability.

[_joel]

Quite a few, actually.

[pfortuny]

Wow this is a huge caveat: a guarantee that they are using data and not complying with GDPR.

[sigmoid10]

GDPR is not the issue here, the new AI act is. Since this is an open-weight release it is not bound by the training data disclosure rules, but it probably didn't go through the evaluation that is required above a certain number of FLOPs. That's why many recent big player model releases had a staggered release in the EU.

[2Gkashmiri]

If you download to your PC and run locally, what will happen?

[waffleiron]

There is not a single AI model that fully complies with GDPR. How can you inform everyone, even those not named by actual name but otherwise identifiable, that their data is being processed and give them the ability to object when the data they train on isn’t public.

Literally the same for all other open weights, this is just legal ass covering where most others don’t even do that.

[imiric]

Shocking. At least they acknowledge it.

[seydor]

does anyone comply with gdpr & Ai act? Even for mistral i m not sure, the best we can say is "we don't know"

[yard2010]

There's something nefarious about this.

[knowitnone]

I doubt the Chinese ever care about licensing so I would not care about following their license