Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: llm

[Jim Porter]

On 8/27/2023 7:32 PM, Andrew Hyatt wrote:
> After following Jim Porter's suggestion above, here is the new function, 
> and you can see the advice we're giving in the docstring:
>
> (cl-defgeneric llm-nonfree-message-info (provider)
>    "If PROVIDER is non-free, return info for a warning.
> This should be a cons of the name of the LLM, and the URL of the
> terms of service.
>
> If the LLM is free and has no restrictions on use, this should
> return nil. Since this function already returns nil, there is no
> need to override it."
>    (ignore provider)
>    nil)

For what it's worth, I was thinking about having the default be the 
opposite: warn users by default, since we don't really know if an LLM 
provider is free unless the Elisp code indicates it. (Otherwise, it 
could simply mean the author of that provider forgot to override 
'llm-nonfree-message-info'.) In other words, assume the worst by 
default. :) That said, if everyone else thinks this isn't an issue, I 
won't stamp my feet about it.

As for the docstring, I see that many models use ordinary software 
licenses, such as the Apache license. That could make it easier for us 
to define the criteria for a libre provider: is the model used by the 
provider available under a license the FSF considers a free software 
license?[1] (For LLM providers that you use by making a web request, we 
could also expect that all the code for their web API is libre too. 
However, that code is comparatively uninteresting, and so long as you 
could get the model to use on a self-hosted system[2], I don't see a 
need to warn the user.)

(Also, if you prefer to avoid having to say '(ignore provider)', you can 
also prefix 'provider' with an underscore. That'll make the byte 
compiler happy.)

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

[2] At least, in theory. A user might not have enough computing power to 
use the model in practice, but I don't think that matters for this case.