5 ms·

> Devstral 2 ships under a modified MIT license, while Devstral Small 2 uses Apache 2.0. Both are open-source and permissively licensed to accelerate distribute

> Devstral 2 ships under a modified MIT license, while Devstral Small 2 uses Apache 2.0. Both are open-source and permissively licensed to accelerate distributed intelligence. Uh, the "Modified MIT license" here[0] for Devstral 2 doesn't look particularly permissively licensed (or open-source): > 2. You are not authorized to exercise any rights under this license if the global consolidated monthly revenue of your company (or that of your employer) exceeds $20 million (or its equivalent in another currency) for the preceding month. This restriction in (b) applies to the Model and any derivatives, modifications, or combined works based on it, whether provided by Mistral AI or by a third party. You may contact Mistral AI (sales@mistral.ai) to request a commercial license, which Mistral AI may grant you at its sole discretion, or choose to use the Model on Mistral AI's hosted services available at https://mistral.ai/ https://mistral.ai/. [0] https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-2-123B-Instruct-2512/blob/main/LICENSE https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-2-123B-Instruct-25...

simonw 10mo ago
Mistral have used janky licenses in that a few times in the past. I was hoping the competition from China might have snapped them out of it.
- jrm4 10mo ago
  All "Open Source" licenses are to an extent, janky. Obligatory "Stallman was right;" -- If it's not GPL/Free Software, YMMV.
mkmk3 10mo ago
Earnestly, what's the concern here? People complain about open source being mostly beneficial to megacorps, if that's the main change (idk I haven't looked too closely) then that's pretty good, no?
- JimDabell 10mo ago
  They are claiming something is open-source when it isn’t. Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour of honesty.
  - fastball 10mo ago
    *according to your definition of open-source
    - JimDabell 10mo ago
      No, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source. Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others. There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
      - fastball 10mo ago
        Where are you getting this compendium of commonly-accepted definitions? Looking up open-source in the dictionary does include definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions, depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is most certainly up for debate).
        whimblepop 10mo ago
        "Open-source" isn't a term that emerged organically from conversations between people. It is a term that was very deliberately coined for a specific purpose, defined into existence by an authority. It's a term of art, and its exact definition is available here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to understand it— which means you frankly have no place speaking about the meanings of its terminology.
- badsectoracula 10mo ago
  Mainly about the dilution of the term. Though TBH i do not think that open source is beneficial mostly to megacorps either.
Arcuru 10mo ago
Personally I really like the normalization of these "Permissively" licensed models that only restrict companies with massive revenues from using them for free. If you want to use something, and your company makes $240,000,000 in annual revenue, you should probably pay for it.
- whimsicalism 10mo ago
  That's fine, but I don't think you should call it open source or call it MIT or even 'modified MIT.' Call it Mistral license or something along those lines
  - jrm4 10mo ago
    You're presently illustrating exactly why Stallman et al were such sticklers about "Free Software." "Open Source" is nebulous. It reasonably works here, for better or worse.
    - whimsicalism 10mo ago
      Free software to me means GPL and associates, so if that is what Stallman was trying to be a stickler for - it worked. Open source has a well understood meaning, including licenses like MIT and Apache - but not including MIT but only if you make less than $500million dollars, MIT unless you were born on a wednesday, etc.
      - whimblepop 10mo ago
        MIT and Apache are free software licenses in Stallman's sense, and the FSF has always been clear about it.
    - stonemetal12 10mo ago
      >"Open Source" is nebulous No it isn't it is well defined. The only people who find it "nebulous" are people who want the benefits without upholding the obligations. https://opensource.org/definition-annotated https://opensource.org/definition-annotated
squigz 10mo ago
Is such a term even enforceable? How would it be? How could Mistral know how much a company makes if that information isn't public?
- lillecarl 10mo ago
  They don't have to enforce it, evil megacorps won't risk the legal consequences of using it without talking to Mistral first. In reality they just won't use it.

simonw 10mo ago

Mistral have used janky licenses in that a few times in the past. I was hoping the competition from China might have snapped them out of it.

jrm4 10mo ago
All "Open Source" licenses are to an extent, janky. Obligatory "Stallman was right;" -- If it's not GPL/Free Software, YMMV.

mkmk3 10mo ago

Earnestly, what's the concern here? People complain about open source being mostly beneficial to megacorps, if that's the main change (idk I haven't looked too closely) then that's pretty good, no?

JimDabell 10mo ago
They are claiming something is open-source when it isn’t. Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour of honesty.
- fastball 10mo ago
  *according to your definition of open-source
  - JimDabell 10mo ago
    No, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source. Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others. There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
    - fastball 10mo ago
      Where are you getting this compendium of commonly-accepted definitions? Looking up open-source in the dictionary does include definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions, depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is most certainly up for debate).
      - whimblepop 10mo ago
        "Open-source" isn't a term that emerged organically from conversations between people. It is a term that was very deliberately coined for a specific purpose, defined into existence by an authority. It's a term of art, and its exact definition is available here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to understand it— which means you frankly have no place speaking about the meanings of its terminology.
badsectoracula 10mo ago
Mainly about the dilution of the term. Though TBH i do not think that open source is beneficial mostly to megacorps either.

Arcuru 10mo ago

Personally I really like the normalization of these "Permissively" licensed models that only restrict companies with massive revenues from using them for free. If you want to use something, and your company makes $240,000,000 in annual revenue, you should probably pay for it.

whimsicalism 10mo ago
That's fine, but I don't think you should call it open source or call it MIT or even 'modified MIT.' Call it Mistral license or something along those lines
- jrm4 10mo ago
  You're presently illustrating exactly why Stallman et al were such sticklers about "Free Software." "Open Source" is nebulous. It reasonably works here, for better or worse.
  - whimsicalism 10mo ago
    Free software to me means GPL and associates, so if that is what Stallman was trying to be a stickler for - it worked. Open source has a well understood meaning, including licenses like MIT and Apache - but not including MIT but only if you make less than $500million dollars, MIT unless you were born on a wednesday, etc.
    - whimblepop 10mo ago
      MIT and Apache are free software licenses in Stallman's sense, and the FSF has always been clear about it.
  - stonemetal12 10mo ago
    >"Open Source" is nebulous No it isn't it is well defined. The only people who find it "nebulous" are people who want the benefits without upholding the obligations. https://opensource.org/definition-annotated https://opensource.org/definition-annotated

squigz 10mo ago

Is such a term even enforceable? How would it be? How could Mistral know how much a company makes if that information isn't public?

lillecarl 10mo ago
They don't have to enforce it, evil megacorps won't risk the legal consequences of using it without talking to Mistral first. In reality they just won't use it.