"Open source" my ass -- they are liars
"Open source" my ass. Since when does "open source" mean you need written permission from some company to use it commercially and slap their logo everywhere? That’s not open source. That’s source available with a leash.
The GNU project and the Free Software Foundation spent decades defining what “free software” actually means — freedom to run, study, modify, and redistribute, including commercially. This MiniMax license violates at least two of those freedoms right out of the gate.
Call it what it is: proprietary code with viewable weights. Stop muddying the term “open source” just because you put a model on HuggingFace. It’s misleading, and honestly, it’s getting tiresome.
If I need a lawyer to ship a product, it’s not open source. Period.
Call it what it is: a multi-million dollar model given to you for free research, and you are complaining about the packaging. 😁
holy shit stop complaining
I had a feeling when they delayed the release of the model on Hugging Face, but don't worry too much. Gemma 3 used a terrible license, so even though it was actually a great model, the attention it got was nowhere near proportional to its performance. That's why Google switched to the Apache license for Gemma 4. So, time will fix this—once they realize that the reputation they don't care about now will cause major trouble for adoption rates in the future.
its different than their past for sure, but why are you complaining about free? this doesn't hurt you in any way. You just complaining to complain
Call it what it is: a multi-million dollar model given to you for free research, and you are complaining about the packaging. 😁
Wrong, it is not given to me. Neither I "have it". That is the point of fake and deceptive statement that they are so called "open source". They are not.
Learn the terminology, and stop falsely representing:
The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/osd
its different than their past for sure, but why are you complaining about free? this doesn't hurt you in any way. You just complaining to complain
But you are conflating "free" as in money, or cost, and free as in liberty.
The model is not free software-alike, not open source, the problem is not about them being proprietary. I don't mind, there are many proprietary models.
Problem is in their deceptive advertising it as "open source" while it is not.
If it is multi-million dollar model, then they can also be honest in their advertising, they can pay people to advertise honestly.
Calling it "open source" is an insult to huge free software community.
I think the problem here is the license being "Modified-MIT". I have never seen a closed-source model tagged like that and it's really confusing. They should rename the license to not include "MIT" in its name and make it clear what can and can't be done with this model.
The level of entitlement displayed in this post is staggering.