This is on their website...

"Is Kimi K2.5 open source?"

"Yes, Kimi K2.5 is an open source AI model. Developers and researchers can explore its architecture, build new solutions, and experiment openly. Model weights and code are publicly available on Hugging Face and the official GitHub repository."

https://www.kimi.com/ai-models/kimi-k2-5

▲

saidmukhamad 5 hours ago | parent [-]

4th paragraph in license block

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 K2.5" on the user interface of such product or service.

▲

ffsm8 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My first reaction was "well, who knows how much revenue they're actually doing"

But at least the rumor mill has them significantly above that line:

> Revenue: As of March 2026, reports suggest Cursor has surpassed $2 billion in annualized revenue (ARR).

▲

lmc 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not an open source license, then.

▲

bakugo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It wouldn't be regardless, because the model is open weights, not open source. It's just a license.

▲

lmc 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Which contradicts what they say on their website.

	▲	igravious 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Correct. (and I know you already know this but just for the record: (Nearly?) Everybody abuses the term "open source" when it comes to models. OSI have a post about it: https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights

▲

kbrkbr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why not?

▲

lmc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This 'Modified MIT' is not a license that has been through the OSI process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition#Com...

You can't just add random terms to an existing license and use its name. "Modified MIT: Like MIT but pay us 50 million dollars."

Perhaps CC-BY would've been more appropriate.

	▲	igravious 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Correct again -- CC- applies to data, not code -- weights are data, open weights suggests a creative commons approach … “ CC-BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes. BY Credit must be given to you, the creator. ” it's annoying the open source term is being cargo-culted around and I hate to say it but that ship looks like it has sailed. funny that free software people were infuriated by the open source term and now the open source term is being completely misused in another context