"Modified" MIT License, is NOT a MIT License and it NOT open source.
You state that "We release this model under a Modified MIT License: Open-source license for both commercial and non-commercial use with exceptions for companies with large revenue."
Please take "MIT" out of the name. This is NOT an MIT license. MIT has not released a "Modified" license. You are using the goodwill established by the real MIT License over decades and inverting it's meaning. It CONFLICTS with the MIT license. It is NOT an open source license.
You can license your model however you want. I am not disputing that.
But you should NOT call it MIT, when it is not.
You should NOT call it open source, when it is not.
Your exceptions CONFLICT with open source licenses and the MIT license.
Please correct your documentation.
Oh great - another licensing rant.
This is a free product that cost an amount greater than $0 to make. A simple "thank you" would suffice.
If the creators are using a license similar to the MIT but with modifications, what would you prefer they call it?
They don't have to call it anything. It's just the license. Using MIT is wrong, since it isn't an MIT license.
They are undermining open source by using the phrase but not actually following the principles of open source. They shouldn't be calling it "open source" if it isn't open source. It's that simple.
Your message is fine (I guess...) but why must you (and so many others like you) deliver it so poorly?
You don't come in with an "FYI" or "Hey, there's something you should know about the license guys...", but instead as an open-source terrorist with your list of demands. "DO NOT call it X! It CONFLICTS with Y!!!".
How about you communicate your message in a civil way, perhaps?
Oh great - another licensing rant.
This is a free product that cost an amount greater than $0 to make. A simple "thank you" would suffice.
If the creators are using a license similar to the MIT but with modifications, what would you prefer they call it?
Its not truly free if there strings attached. And it seems to be the current path many so-called 'opensource' projects have gone lately ( not just AI, but in general ). Have it totally open at first, get lots of free testing and patches and such, then close it down as it reaches critical stage for commercialization.
Sure, i totally agree we get something out of it during that 'testing phase' which is nice, and if we kept the code/etc from that time period we still get to keep the code.. but the dishonesty of late is disappointing.
And yes, using misleading terms in a license is, well, misleading, at best.
I can understand that but the number of posts that just start by ranting and raving about the licensing is wild. There is never any sort of polite request, it's just yammering on telling the companies how they must immediately change their license. The tone and audacity of the post undermine their point entirely. I say: Bring light to the issue, but don't make any sort of demands. People are smart - if the license is important, they'll look elsewhere for their AI models. That's just my two cents.