Unlikely laziness, since they went to the effort of writing a custom license in the first place.

A more plausible explanation is the requirements and obligations of those markets are ambiguous or open-ended in such a way that they cannot be meaningfully limited by a license, per the lawyers they retain to create things like licenses. Lawyers don’t like vague and uncertain risk, so they advised the company to reduce their risk exposure by opting out of those markets.

▲

amelius 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe, but if you cannot say something simple as "here is something you can use for free, use at your own risk, we are not liable for anything", then that is a clear indication of the bankruptcy of the law, imho.

Since the law is very well developed in the EU, I think the people who wrote the license were just lazy.

	▲	Miraste 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The AI act being "well developed" means it's dense enough that compliance can't be done without the backing of a major corporation's legal team. Tencent is a major corporation, but this is a janky research project that's not part of a product. The researchers don't have legal knowledge of EU regulations, and they probably have limited or zero access to anyone who does. Cutting off EU countries is the safe and responsible choice.

▲

notpushkin 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t get it. Couldn’t they just write a liability disclaimer clause that covers that, without explicitly calling out particular jurisdictions? E.g. “you are solely responsible for ensuring your use of the model is lawful and agree to indemnify the authors or whatever. If you can’t do that in your jurisdiction, you can’t use the model.”

	▲	NitpickLawyer 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The problem is that AI act covers entities releasing AI software as open source. That has never been the case so far, so while they're still figuring it out, better safe than sorry.