3 ms·

The readme doesn't claim its open source either from what I can tell. Seems to be just a misguided title by the person who submitted it to HN The only referenc

by ffsm8 10mo ago

The readme doesn't claim its open source either from what I can tell. Seems to be just a misguided title by the person who submitted it to HN The only reference seems to be in the acknowledgement, saying that this builds ontop of open source software

runjake 10mo ago
Link to the actual project license, since it hasn't been referenced yet: https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE Between this and the model's license, it seems like one is stuck with using this for personal use?
jonas21 10mo ago
The code is licensed [1] under the "Apple MIT" license [2], which is considered open-source. The weights are under a different, more restrictive license. This is mentioned at the bottom of the README. [1] https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License
- echelon 10mo ago
  This is optimally foolish. It effectively prevents the community from using Apple's solution, but gives the Chinese everything they need to duplicate the results and push their own version. I expect a Hunyuan-branded version of this model in six months. Probably with lots of improvements. I'm all for Chinese model takeover if this is how US tech giants treat AI. You can't horde the flames forever, US hyperscalers. The DoD ought to be advocating for a strong domestic open source stance to ensure our ecosystem doesn't get washed away. AI czar David Sacks has this view, but I suppose it's been falling on deaf ears when the hyperscalers crowd out the conversation.
  - elAhmo 10mo ago
    What DoD has to do with a release of this model?
    - oblio 10mo ago
      I guess they're asking for some type of export restrictions.
- cycomanic 10mo ago
  This bugs the hell out of me, somehow these companies argue that training on all sort of content without is fine because reasons and then have the audacity to attach a new proprietary licence to it.

by ffsm8 10mo ago

runjake 10mo ago

Link to the actual project license, since it hasn't been referenced yet: https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE Between this and the model's license, it seems like one is stuck with using this for personal use?

jonas21 10mo ago

The code is licensed [1] under the "Apple MIT" license [2], which is considered open-source. The weights are under a different, more restrictive license. This is mentioned at the bottom of the README. [1] https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/apple/ml-sharp/blob/main/LICENSE [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License

echelon 10mo ago
This is optimally foolish. It effectively prevents the community from using Apple's solution, but gives the Chinese everything they need to duplicate the results and push their own version. I expect a Hunyuan-branded version of this model in six months. Probably with lots of improvements. I'm all for Chinese model takeover if this is how US tech giants treat AI. You can't horde the flames forever, US hyperscalers. The DoD ought to be advocating for a strong domestic open source stance to ensure our ecosystem doesn't get washed away. AI czar David Sacks has this view, but I suppose it's been falling on deaf ears when the hyperscalers crowd out the conversation.
- elAhmo 10mo ago
  What DoD has to do with a release of this model?
  - oblio 10mo ago
    I guess they're asking for some type of export restrictions.
cycomanic 10mo ago
This bugs the hell out of me, somehow these companies argue that training on all sort of content without is fine because reasons and then have the audacity to attach a new proprietary licence to it.