Hugging Face's logo
Back to Articles

Balancing Large Language Model (LLM) Convenience with Control in the Age of Free Software 🌌🤖

Community Article Published March 27, 2025
Upvote
3
Jean Louis's avatar
JLouisBiz Jean Louis
Date: 2025-03-27 by Jean Louis

At this point, we are struggling with the installations, understanding, and integration of all natural language processing inputs and outputs between humans and computers 🖥👤. We're discussing how to recognize pictures; videos 💻✨; speech 👂➕; and making computers talk as though they were human-to-human interactions. I can see that the computer is getting better at replacing human roles, which aligns with our goals—we want artificial assistance 🌟. It's all about making life easier ⏰. The purpose lies in achieving better life, more joy , and less work ⚒️🛑.

While these technologies promise to enrich our lives by making tasks easier and more efficient, I often find myself pondering the delicate balance between convenience and control. Are we truly taking the reins, or subtly surrendering our privacy and autonomy for the sake of efficiency? It's essential to remain vigilant, ensuring that while we harness the power of these innovations, we don't lose sight of our personal agency. The ultimate goal is to enhance our existence, not to let technology overshadow our human spirit. Let's welcome these advancements with open arms and open eyes, striving to maintain a balance that allows technology to serve us, not control us.

image/webp

Empowering Humanity: The Freedom of Free Software and the Vision of Richard Stallman

To navigate the fine line between embracing technology and maintaining our autonomy, the concept of free software, championed by visionaries like Richard Stallman and the GNU Project, offers a compelling solution. Richard Stallman, a pioneer in the realm of software freedom, initiated the GNU Project to create a completely free operating system. Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) founded by Stallman, is not about being free of cost, but about the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute software. These freedoms ensure that users retain control over the technology they use, preventing the potential for programmers to impose restrictions or control over users.

The Free Software Foundation fosters these principles by advocating for software that respects user freedom. By promoting the use of free software, the FSF empowers individuals and communities to shape technology according to their needs, rather than being dictated by proprietary interests. This freedom is pivotal in preventing issues where technology might control us, or where we might find ourselves constrained by the limitations of proprietary software. In a world increasingly driven by digital interactions, free software stands as a testament to the importance of maintaining human agency and ensuring that technology serves as a tool for empowerment rather than a means of control. 🌟🔗🛠️

Learn what is Free Software

Quote from the article "What is Free Software?":

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

The Four Essential Freedoms

The Free Software Foundation outlines four essential freedoms that define free software:

  1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). This means that users can use the software without any restrictions, whether for personal use, in a business setting, or for any other purpose, without needing to pay licensing fees or seek permission from the software's creators.

  2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). This freedom is crucial for developers and users who wish to understand the software's inner workings and tailor it to meet their specific needs. It ensures that users are not locked into software that may not meet their needs or expectations.

  3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). This allows users to share software with friends, colleagues, and the wider community, fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual aid. It ensures that software can be disseminated widely, without barriers or restrictions.

  4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). This freedom ensures that improvements and modifications made to the software can be shared, benefiting the entire community. It encourages innovation and continuous improvement of the software.

Free software can be commercial

Free software transcends being merely "noncommercial." It must be available for commercial use—useful both as a tool within businesses and through its development by companies—to achieve its goals of widespread adoption.

The GNU system invites all users, including business entities, to embrace it fully; this necessitates allowing commercial engagement. Free programs should replace proprietary ones in the marketplace without restrictions on their usage or distribution for profit.

Commercial involvement—whether via products incorporating free software sold at a price or through professional support services—is vital and increasingly common within the realm of free software development.

Restricting any aspect, be it use, development, or distribution to commercial entities would impede progress. A program that limits these freedoms does not qualify as truly "free."

A genuinely free program must grant all four essential user freedoms without condition—neither monetary nor otherwise—to anyone who acquires the software and adheres to its licensing terms in prior distributions. Any limitation on exercising these rights equates to denying them, thus disqualifying a program from being considered free.

Majority of Large Language Model (LLM) software is built on free software

Free software comes from licenses that adhere to the four essential freedoms defined by free software principles. You can explore various licenses along with comments about them on this GNU project page.

It’s important to note, however, that some widely-used models like Llama or those published under Google's Gemma license aren't actually Free Software—or even Open Source for that matter. META has boldly claimed "Llama" is open source; this move seems more of an affront than a compliment to the free software communities by attempting to water down these terms, likely driven by profit motives.

But Llama isn’t truly Open Source or Free Software:
GNU License List - Llama

What step should you do to empower yourself?

In conclusion, as we stand on the brink of a technological revolution where computers are becoming increasingly faster and more capable, it's imperative that users prioritize privacy in natural language processing (NLP) applications. The convenience offered by advanced technologies should not come at the expense of our autonomy or control over personal data.

To safeguard these values, individuals must strive to implement private and local Large Language Models (LLMs) on their own devices using Free Software.

This approach ensures that users retain full control over how software operates without being subjected to third-party restrictions imposed by proprietary models from corporations like META or Google. By choosing free alternatives such as EuroLLM, Microsoft's Phi-4 series or IBM Granite or OLMoE from AllenAI, and SmolVLM from HuggingFace among others, we can maintain our digital sovereignty.

The principles of Free Software championed by Richard Stallman through the GNU Project emphasize user freedom over mere cost savings—freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute software. These freedoms are crucial in preventing technology from overshadowing human agency or becoming a tool for control rather than empowerment.

It's essential that technological advancements serve us by enhancing our lives without compromising the core values of privacy and autonomy. By supporting Free Software initiatives, users can ensure their interactions remain under personal jurisdiction while contributing to an ecosystem where technology truly serves humanity’s best interests. Let this be a call for every user: prioritize freedom in software choices today so we may enjoy both technological progress and human dignity tomorrow.

In essence, the future of computing should not only bridge gaps between humans and machines but also uphold our fundamental rights as users—rights that are enshrined within Free Software's four essential freedoms. Let us champion these ideals to foster a digital world where technology empowers rather than controls.

References

GNU Project

Those who push proprietary models on humanity

Free Software Models on HuggingFace and how to recognize them

Utilize Free Software Frameworks: Release Your Software and Models Under Free Software Licenses

To foster innovation while ensuring accessibility, it's crucial to avoid using proprietary models for fine-tuning your own. Doing so can inadvertently create another layer of restricted access, limiting the broader community’s ability to build upon existing work without legal hurdles. Instead, opt for free software frameworks like Qwen and DeepSeek when developing or enhancing Large Language Model (LLM) technologies; these tools are designed with freedom in mind.

By locally installing and running models from Free Software projects such as IBM Granite or Microsoft's Phi-4, you not only support a collaborative ecosystem but also mitigate potential legal risks that could affect thousands of users. Furthermore, training your own free software-based models provides an opportunity to contribute back by publishing them under truly free licenses—ensuring they remain accessible for future innovation and community growth.

Embracing this approach aligns with the principles of Free Software development: transparency, collaboration, and freedom in usage. It empowers developers worldwide while safeguarding against proprietary constraints that can stifle creativity and progress within tech communities.

Community

deleted
•
edited about 1 month ago

Okay, I'm upvoting this.

There this thing on HuggingFace, you do whatever you wish and think that just because one is good at maths, one reigns the world. But, then someone like you, yes we do not know each other, come here and points out things that are really pertinent. I don't know your intentions, and at least for this I do not need to, I like what you've been doing!

You are totally right about questioning those shady things. But the point, Mister, is the people here are just like any other in socialnetworking: no one reads anything. I mean most of them do not. The platform has it's own guidelines and it's ignored. You ask some pertinent questions, no one answers.

If you go check papers brought here from Arxiv, there are plenty which even question the whole HUB, for the fact that there might be security breaches as malicious code, etc. How many upvotes those papers get? None, or one or maximum two, which is roughly none compared to the size of the userbase.

Now you go to "famous" models, check their "reports", and it's the paper of the day. Now who really read it? Not that I'm saying it's forbidden to upvote even though you did not read anything, as the option is there and anyone does whatever they wish, including not to read things. But... it's sad, or at least it's sad IMO.

I would like to ask if you could provide as an example any case which could be applied here with these licenses of not free software? And I'm sorry, I'm asking you that because I'm not a lawyer - then not from such area.

Have a great weekend.

JLouisBiz
 Article author

From time to time I read papers and they give insights how some methods work in newest technologies of computing. I was today just wondering who invented the abbreviation RAG, and then I found it in the paper first time mentioned.

But without context, does the abbreviation "Retrieval Augmented Generation" give meaning to new people? I don't think so.

Why not Enhanced Context Text Synthesis? Or Knowledge-Infused Text Synthesis? One paper written and whole world follows it, though we can see too few users using it.

Related to licenses there are many repercussion with non-free software licenses. Just look at the latest "Llama4" license where European users are not allowed to use it. They do use it, but they may get into the trouble. And META gets serious problems too: https://www.law360.com/articles/2309121/authors-seek-win-on-meta-ai-direct-infringement-claims

They wish to protect their "copyrights" while infringing on other people copyrights. That is where one can see failed corporate strategy.

Supporting non-free models supports decay and problems in society.

Insisting on full freely license datasets and reproducible Large Language Models develops our society and education.

deleted

Well, sorry but what would you expect when they create datasets (and share here on the hub) related to holistic things and philosophy, and when you go check them out, they are whether about spiritualism or fighting against philosophical mindset.

They really believe that LLMs will gain consciousness just being trained on maths and coding. heh.

Thanks for sharing the example. And my time (and patience) on this web is OVER!

Have a great weekend, a great month, year and life!

morningD
•
edited 25 days ago

I appreciate this article and have also observed the widespread indifference toward model licensing on this platform. I’ve been working with lawyers to draft a new set of model-specific license (similar with model style of CCs) called ModelGo for general model publishing. We’ve submitted several variants of ModelGo for review by OSI and hope it can help establish a more standardized way to model sharing.

Note: The current version of ModelGo Licenses on our website is not the latest one submitted to OSI, as we are still addressing their feedback.

JLouisBiz
 Article author

Well, you should submit it with the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as well.

Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

JLouisBiz
 Article author

https://gnu.support/files/tmp/clipboard-2025-04-14-19-06-34.html

Sadly I see that you are just generalizing about it but not really fighting for the free software so I don't find your concept good and well there is nothing to support.

·
morningD
•
edited 21 days ago

I see, but I’d like to clarify that we have only submitted MG0, MG-BY, and MG-BY-OS for open source approval by OSI. I acknowledge that other ModelGo variants do not comply with the OSD and FSF’s definition of free software. However, I believe it’s still important to provide users with options—such as RAI, NC, or ND—for publishing their models, rather than pushing them toward less suitable alternatives like proprietary licenses (e.g., LLaMA 2 or Gemma), which often introduce more legal ambiguity.

I am not arguing that every model must be open source, but it should be easy to clearly distinguish open source models from those that are not.

JLouisBiz
 Article author

You see, you are making licensing platform from view point "I don't mind".

The Free Software Foundation does mind and doesn't approve proprietary licenses. They have got a goal and purposes of its existence, promoting the cause.

The Open Source Initiative promote the cause of making free software, they don't just take non-partisan stance to say "We don't care".

Because if you do not care, do you think users will give you support and care?

You are trying to make something like "Creative Commons". They do have non-free and proprietary licenses. In fact, if you would follow their way I would get you. But you also do not understand points of some of non-free licenses.

I can see lack of understanding from the way how your website promotes "licenses".

When you enjoy music, you may get freedom to download it and play it and also to share it with friends. This is very common. But author maybe doesn't want you to sell it. I can understand well in this case why non-free license is there.

But with Large Language Model, I can't. It is about text generation, video, image generation, the moment you release it there is huge interest to monetize the products. Trying to forbid commercial use is even futile, how are you going to know it when it happens? Why in the first place was it released with non-free license? Then I mean, don't release it. Keep it proprietary for you like "Open"AI.

Look at the Chinese community now with Free Software models! They are leading the world.

It is because they use Free Software.

You would get much more support if you lean on principles of the Free Software Foundation or Open Source Initiative, as promoting freedom for users makes sense.

Being non-partisan, not caring for users, doesn't promote good cause. And you receive less support.

·
Elfsong

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I appreciate your passion for free software principles and understand your concerns about non-free or proprietary licenses.

At the same time, different creators may have different needs and goals. Some want to build fully free models, while others prefer more restricted models—similar to how Creative Commons offers a spectrum of licenses. From my view, ModelGo is providing a platform that supports various licensing preferences, not out of disregard for users, but to acknowledge that one size doesn’t always fit all. For some, a fully permissive license is the best path. Others may need or want some restrictions.

You make a great point that free licensing can spur vibrant communities and attract more active support. It’s true that many of the most successful open-source projects thrive because they give people broad freedom to use, modify, and share. Still, there are situations where developers or organizations feel they need tighter control—for commercial reasons, IP protection, or simply preference.

Thank you for taking the time to outline your perspective—it’s an important reminder of why openness matters to so many in the tech community.

Your need to confirm your account before you can post a new comment.

Sign up or log in to comment

Upvote
3