Hacker News Reader

Comment by metalspot | Hacker News Reader

It is absolutely clear and unambiguous. "DeekSeek" can only mean the corporate entity "Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd (DeepSeek)" and so there is no doubt at all about what an "implementation" means in this context.

An implementation must be a third party product that is using a product provided by the DeepSeek corporate entity.

View on HN

Even if you are a lawyer or someone who studied law, you’re still not a judge and it really isn’t clear how things will land in an actual court of law.

I don’t think there’s any direct precedent here, so maybe lawyers would need to get creative and find other references from past cases that might somewhat apply and try to convince the judge.

this is really basic stuff. it isn't even legal rules it is the rules of grammar. there is no ambiguity at all. "DeepSeek" in this context can only mean one thing, and anyone arguing differently is basically arguing that 2+2=3. it is either ignorance or FUD.

So you are offering your grammar expertise to us, not any meaningful commentary on the law or legal aspects of the document? That’s a helpful distinction to make. I read it to include open weight models produced by the company you cite, and derivative products.

due to its popularity with self hosting by both individuals and companies, the deepseek model, its weights, can easily represent the whole of deepseek.

so if they say dont use deepseek, it means dont use the company & dont use the model. it is the only reasonable way to read this. you are looking for doorways where there arent any reasonable ones.

The link between grammar and law is... Interesting. Think about all the arguments over what exactly the second amendment means.

> An implementation must be a third party product that is using a product provided by the DeepSeek corporate entity.

That is not clear at all. Are open weights a "product"? The discussion of mobile app vulnerabilities treats the (freely provided, openly available) mobile app as a product. And the order is equally clear that it covers "products and services" from DeepSeek-affiliated corporate entities as well as "the DeepSeek corporate entity" itself.

I don't claim to have a definite answer; I think the order is awkwardly worded and maybe not fully developed. The footnotes I mentioned prohibit (all) procurements involving third-party "DeepSeek implementations"; that implies that a first-party (US Government) "DeepSeek implementation" would be allowed. Maybe that is intended, maybe it is not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com