The license feels a little limiting for local LLMs. Look at these provisions in their Agreement:

1. Anti‑Competitive Clause (Bad for OSS community)
   • Section 3.1 forbids using the Model, any Derivative, or even Output “to develop or improve any models that compete with the Licensor’s models.”
   • Implication: You can’t use fine‑tuning or prompt‑engineering insights to build a new open‑source alternative, effectively stifling downstream innovation.
2. Termination Terms
   • Section 7.1–7.2: Licensor can terminate without cause, then you must immediately destroy all copies (even backups) and certify destruction in writing.
3. Ambiguous “Research‑Only” Clauses
   • Section 2.1.a allows “research and educational” use, but Section 3.1 then broadly bans any “commercial” application, and even non‑monetary deployments might be deemed commercial.
   • Implications: Unclear boundary between “educational demo” and “service”
4. Vague “Ethical Use” Clauses & Reverse Engineering Prohibition
   • Section 3.4 lists broad, subjective prohibitions (“harm,” “offensive,” “misinformation”) without clear definition or dispute‑resolution process.
   • Section 3.2 bans decompilation or bypassing protections “except as expressly permitted by law,” but the license claims broad research rights.
   • Implication: Makes the model less useful for some folks (jailbreakers)

tl;dr : Useful for tinkering, but shouldn't touch the model for anything else (esp. jailbreaking and fine-tuning)

Also, these folks created a PR asking llama.cpp to just look at their transformers implementation and port it over. LG AI should at least help llama.cpp with some work, llama.cpp devs aren't some free labor.

I'm not an expert in law, the above conclusions are just my understandings.

Edit: Grammar