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.

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?

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