Falcon 40B license vs 180B - conflict ?
Is Falcon 180B not based on Falcon 40B ? In that case the license would be shared (Apache).
In general it's quite disappointing to see that after the successful launch of the Open Source models you go back to restrictive licensing.
(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice).
While I would absolutely love Falcon 180B to have an open source license, the license doesn't have to be shared.
Even if you are right that Falcon 180B is indeed based on Falcon 40B (and I'm not making any claim on the matter):
- Apache 2.0 is not a copyleft license. Even if the Technology Innovation Institute weren't the author of Falcon 40B, they could totally use a different license, because Apache 2.0 allows for it, it ain't the GPL.
- As a matter of fact, the Technology Innovation Institute is the author of both Falcon 40B and Falcon 180B. So they have no obligation to comply with the terms of the license anyway and can license their own model as they please. The only thing they cannot do is revoke the license on what they have already licensed.
I agree, of course, that Falcon 180B is not open source (and that Falcon 40B is). I wish it were. It is sad that it isn't. But there is absolutely no licensing conflict here.
That's a pity, I didn't know that about Apache.
I'd consider the 180B variant useless for anything but hobby applications, and too resource hungry for hobby applications.
In their terms they write that you not only need to comply with their "acceptable use policy", you also need to comply with any future changes to it.
So if you have a successful business that uses Falcon and they want your money, they can add one line into their AUP and your are out of business.
That's even worse than the first Falcon 40B license.
That's a pity, I didn't know that about Apache.
It would still be true for any other (reasonable) free and open source license.
Licenses are permissions from the author (licensor) to the user (licensee).
The licensor doesn't need any license to do anything. He's the one giving licenses. He has no obligation, not even under a copyleft license.
Releasing something as open source is just a "gift" done to others. One doesn't then have the duty to also gift licenses, any kind of licenses, on anything else they do in the future.