CaptainFever 2 days ago

It's not even open-weight. It's weight-available. It uses a "modified MIT license":

    Modified MIT License
    
    Copyright (c) 2025 Moonshot AI
    
    Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
    of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal
    in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
    to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
    copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
    furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
    
    The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
    copies or substantial portions of the Software.
    
    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
    IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
    FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
    AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
    LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
    OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
    SOFTWARE.
    
    Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works
    thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have
    more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars
    (or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you shall prominently
    display "Kimi K2" on the user interface of such product or service.
Reply View 3 replies
  • mitthrowaway2 2 days ago

    This seems significantly more permissive than GPL. I think it's reasonable to consider it open-weight.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • weitendorf 2 days ago

    So "MIT with attribution" (but only for huge commercial use cases making tons of money off the product) is not open-weight? Do you consider CC BY photos on Wikipedia to be Image Available or GPL licensed software to be code-available too?

    Tangent: I don't understand the contingent that gets upset about open LLMs not shipping with their full training regimes or source data. The software a company spent hundreds of millions of dollars creating, which you are now free to use and distribute with essentially no restrictions, is open source. It has weights in it, and a bunch of related software for actually running a model with those weights. How dare they!

    Reply View 0 replies
  • MallocVoidstar 2 days ago

    4-clause BSD is considered open source by Debian and the FSF and has a similar requirement.

    Reply View 0 replies
mistercheph 2 days ago

Wont happen under the current copyright regime, it is impossible to train SOTA without copyrighted text, how do you propose distributing that?

Reply View 3 replies
  • irthomasthomas 2 days ago

    List the titles.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • mixel 2 days ago

      But probably they don't have the rights to actually train on them and that's why they do not publish the list. Otherwise it may be laziness who knows

      Reply View 0 replies
spookie a day ago

We really need to stop diluting the meaning of open source

Reply View 0 replies