Free to use. Not free to sell.

Noncommercial use is free, and that is not a trial.

If you are not making money from it, it is free. And it is not a trial.

There is no key, no sign-up, no expiry, and nothing to renew. Read the source, run it, modify it, fork it, teach with it, write about it, use it in your own noncommercial work.

There is no key, no sign-up, no end date and nothing to renew. Read the source. Run it. Change it. Copy it. Teach with it. Write about it. Use it in your own work, as long as you are not making money from it.

What this is actually for.

The licence exists to keep the work attributable and to make commercial use a conversation. It does not exist to catch people. Noncommercial products are fine — that is what the licence already says, and it is meant plainly rather than as a technicality waiting to be argued.

The licence exists so the work stays credited, and so commercial use starts a conversation. It does not exist to catch people out. Products that do not make money are fine. That is what the licence already says, and it is meant plainly. It is not a technicality waiting to be argued.

There are two things worth enforcing against, and they are the same two either way:

Two things are worth acting on. They are the same two either way:

• Using it to break the immutable laws of the system. They are published, content-addressed and unedited: denying choice, enforcing outcomes, fabricating certainty, optimising for dependency, rewriting trace, crowning authority, manufacturing motion.
• Using it to break the fixed laws of the system. Those laws are published, named by their own bytes, and never edited. They rule out: taking away choice, forcing outcomes, faking certainty, building things people cannot leave, rewriting the record, crowning one authority, and making motion for its own sake.
• Gaming the universe it runs in. Passing off a modified engine as the canonical one, forging provenance, or presenting a result the record does not support.
• Cheating the system it runs in. Passing off a changed engine as the official one, faking where something came from, or showing a result the record does not support.

Short of those two, nobody is looking for you.

What a commercial licence covers, and what it cannot.

A commercial licence is granted by Alpha Data Omega LLC and covers the software: production use, hosting it for others, embedding it in a product, and training, fine-tuning, evaluating or benchmarking commercial systems with it.

Alpha Data Omega LLC grants the commercial licence. It covers the software: using it in a live product, hosting it for other people, building it into a product, and training, tuning, testing or measuring commercial systems with it.

🜁It cannot grant you the corpora

No software licence can. The material under Δ/ belongs to the people who wrote it, and a licence from us conveys nothing in it — including the story in Δ/V·001, which is reserved to its author with no licence to reproduce, adapt, distribute, or use for training, fine-tuning, evaluation or benchmarking.

No software licence can. The material under Δ/ belongs to the people who wrote it, and a licence from us gives you nothing in it. That includes the story in Δ/V·001. It is kept by its author, with no licence to copy it, adapt it, hand it on, or use it for training, tuning, evaluation or benchmarking.

If your use needs particular material, you license that material from whoever holds it. Every registry entry carries its rights statement and its attribution string for exactly this reason. A contribution that states nothing grants nothing.

If you need particular material, you license it from whoever holds it. Every registry entry carries its rights statement and its credit line for exactly this reason. A contribution that states nothing grants nothing.

🜁What it does not promise

• It is not a warranty. PolyForm's disclaimer applies, and a commercial licence does not turn research software into a supported product unless the agreement says so in terms.
• It is not a warranty. PolyForm’s disclaimer still applies. A commercial licence does not turn research software into a supported product, unless the agreement says so in terms.
• It does not make the system generalise. Measured on three held-out☿ books it has never been fed — 828 probes, 400 bytes of context, exact next-word match, shipped defaults — it reads about 2% of them correctly, ranging 1–3% with sampling, against about 92% of the same probes after being fed those books. Feeding it more makes more material known; it does not improve the unknown. No licence changes that. If your use depends on it answering about things it was not shown, it will not work and you should not buy it.
• It does not make the system read material it was never given. This was measured on three held-out☿ books it has never been fed. There were 828 probes. Each one gave it 400 bytes of context and asked for the next word, matched exactly, on the settings that ship. It reads about 2% of them correctly, ranging 1–3% with sampling. On the same probes, after being fed those books, it reads about 92% correctly. Feeding it more makes more material known. It does not improve the unknown. There is no transfer. No licence changes that. If your use depends on it answering about things it was not shown, it will not work and you should not buy it.
• It does not transfer any trademark or the right to present your build as the canonical one.
• It does not hand over any trademark. It does not give you the right to present your build as the canonical one.

Three things decide the terms.

There is no price list and no form to fill in badly. Terms are set per agreement, and they turn on the same three questions every time — what you are building, roughly what scale, and whether you need any specific corpus.

There is no price list and no form to fill in badly. Terms are set for each agreement. They turn on the same three questions every time: what you are building, roughly what scale, and whether you need any particular corpus.

That last one matters more than people expect. The software licence never conveys rights in anybody's material, so if your use depends on a particular corpus, that is a separate conversation with whoever holds it, and it is better had at the start than after the build.

That last one matters more than people expect. The software licence never gives you rights in anybody’s material. So if your use depends on a particular corpus, that is a separate conversation with whoever holds it. It is better had at the start than after the build.

🜁Send this

Copy the block below, fill it in, and send it. It exists so a request arrives usable rather than as a paragraph that needs three rounds of questions.

Copy the block below, fill it in, and send it. It exists so a request arrives ready to act on, rather than as a paragraph that needs three rounds of questions.

Organisation
Contact name and role

What you are building
  one or two sentences, plainly

Deployment
  internal only / hosted for customers / embedded in a shipped product

Scale
  rough corpus size, rough number of users or queries

Corpora
  your own material only, or do you need a specific entry from the registry
  if so, which

Timeline
  when you need an answer by

Anything else we should know

Copy this template

🜁Where it goes

Send it to Admin@alphadataomega.com, with the template in the body. One address, read by the company, no ticketing system in front of it.

Send it to Admin@alphadataomega.com, with the template in the body. It is one address, read by the company. There is no ticketing system in front of it.

🜁What happens next

• You get a straight answer on whether a licence is available for what you described, and roughly what shape it takes.
• You get a straight answer on whether a licence is available for what you described, and roughly what it would look like.
• If you are evaluating rather than deploying, you do not need any of this — the evaluation grant above already covers it, and nobody needs to reply for that to be true.
• If you are testing it rather than putting it to use, you do not need any of this. The permission above already covers it, and nobody has to reply for that to be true.
• If what you want depends on the system generalising to material it has not been fed, expect to be told no. That is not a negotiating position. On three held-out books, 828 probes at 400 bytes of context, it reads about 2% correctly — 1–3% depending on sampling — against about 92% of the same probes after being fed those books.
• If what you want depends on the system reading material it has not been fed, expect to be told no. That is not a bargaining position. On three held-out books, 828 probes at 400 bytes of context, it reads about 2% correctly, and 1–3% depending on sampling. On the same probes, after being fed those books, it reads about 92% correctly.

You keep what you contribute.

Admission to the registry grants hosting, serving and pinning. Nothing else. No copyright is transferred, no exclusivity is taken, and the software licence does not extend over your material.

Being admitted to the registry lets us host your material, serve it and pin it. Nothing else. No copyright changes hands. No exclusive right is taken. The software licence does not reach over your material.

Before anything is admitted, an automated licence scan reads the material for rights signals — an explicit reservation, a NonCommercial or NoDerivatives term, ShareAlike, a layered licence where an ancient text is public domain but its modern editorial layer is not. Some sources carry one of these and some carry none. Run over the four texts that ship — node scan.js, 2026-08-18 — Pride and Prejudice returns a copyright notice with a year, nine times over, and Moby-Dick returns one public-domain assertion; Frankenstein and the story itself return CLEAR, no signal at all. So the scan finds things a filename never shows, and it finds nothing at all about half the time.

Before anything is admitted, a program reads the material for signs of who holds the rights. It looks for a stated reservation, a NonCommercial or NoDerivatives term, ShareAlike, or a layered licence. A layered licence is one where an ancient text is public domain but a modern editor’s work on top of it is not. Some sources carry one of these and some carry none. It was run over the four texts that ship on 2026-08-18. Pride and Prejudice came back with a copyright notice and a year, nine times over. Moby-Dick came back with one claim that it is public domain. Frankenstein and the story itself came back CLEAR, with no signal at all. So the scan finds things you could never see from a filename, and about half the time it finds nothing.

Where a licence requires credit, the attribution string is stored on the entry and displayed wherever the corpus is used, not buried in a metadata file. Somebody transcribed and proofread that text, usually unpaid, and the credit line is the whole of what they asked in return.

Where a licence requires credit, the credit line is stored on the entry and shown wherever the corpus is used. It is not buried in a metadata file. Somebody typed that text out and checked it, usually for no pay, and the credit line is the whole of what they asked in return.