[lossolo]

In what way was the license "janky"? Moonshot isn't a trillion dollar US behemoth. If these terms allow it to release near frontier models with open weights, so startups and anyone with enough hardware can use them, while charging only companies with more than $20 million in revenue or 100 million users, that seems like a reasonable trade off.

[simonw]

I use the term "janky" for any time someone releases something under a supposedly open source license that doesn't comply with the OSI definition.

"Modified MIT" is the perfect example of that.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable, or that you can't release under such a license - it's your software, use whatever license you like!

I'll call it "janky" when you do.

[lossolo]

So it's more like your personal definition, not the normal meaning of the word. Ok, because "janky" is informal slang also meaning poor quality, unreliable etc. I understand that you're using janky as shorthand for not OSI compliant. I just think that can blur two separate issues: whether a license qualifies as open source under the OSI definition, and whether the license itself is unreasonable/badly designed.

[simonw]

I'm trying to make fetch happen.

[bilbo0s]

Reasonable for people at the bottom of the tech pyramid. Certainly for startup guys this is heaven sent.

For people at the top of the tech pyramid, I could totally see why they'd want to put an end to all this "Open Source LLM" stuff.