4 ms·
Reading their modified license terms, it cracks me up, because they've basically remade the MIT to be the MIT + the one clause that the BSD used to have, which
by giancarlostoro 5mo ago
Reading their modified license terms, it cracks me up, because they've basically remade the MIT to be the MIT + the one clause that the BSD used to have, which didn't care about MAU or revenue, if you used it in a product, they asked you to 'advertise' them basically. Honestly, its a reasonable request.
- htrp 5mo agoThis is the cursor callout. Don't make us shame you into disclosure
- giancarlostoro 5mo agoAh is that what it is? I don't use Cursor, never saw it as being relevant to me, but would not surprise me.
- schmorptron 5mo agoCursor's composer models are finetuned kimi
- varispeed 5mo agoThey are unusable (unless you want to deliberately destroy your codebase). So if Cursor's models are Kimi based, then well. I'll skip them altogether.
- bel8 5mo agoI wouldn't skip at least testing the original. Model distilling done by Cursor could be the culprit.
- Bnjoroge 5mo agoThey are far from unusable. They aork great for 80-90% of a typical full stack dev. Alot less useful for more noche stuff
- qingcharles 5mo agoThey're not unusable, they're just bad when compared with all the real frontier models.
- vidarh 5mo agoKimi works great in their CLI, but their CLI has a number of workarounds for quirks of their models, including detecting when the model gets into a loop, and reverting to a checkpoint but letting the model compose a "message" to its past self (search their CLI for "BackToTheFuture"...) It doesn't work so well in a harness that doesn't take those quirks into account.
- jmcqk6 5mo agoI'm using Composer extensively, and it works great for me. Your experiences are not universal.
- esskay 5mo agoComposer 1.x was poor. The new one is a totally different beast and absolutely fine for day to day.
- ok_dad 5mo agoI only use composer 2.5 day to day and it works fine with human review.
- AgentMasterRace 5mo agoComposer is really good, but just like any Chinese model it needs a good plan. It's cheap and fast, in 1 month of pro I used the equivalent of 500$ in API credit for it.
- 7734128 5mo agoWasn't the end of that story that Cursor had a non-disclosure licence, so they had not done anything wrong towards Moonshot?
- Maxious 5mo agoMoonshot licenced it to Fireworks AI who licenced it to Cursor.
- codemog 5mo agoShaming others when all AI is trained off scraped content and code huh? Many of those sources either breaking ToS or being illegal, such as Anna’s Archive. Bold move. And Chinese models in particular have been accused of distilling off American models. Don’t you know there’s no honor among thieves?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- maherbeg 5mo agoCursor had a specific licensing agreement that allowed them to brand it how they want.
- ignoramous 5mo ago> Cursor had a specific licensing agreement... Cursor had an "agreement" with Fireworks.ai, which apparently allowed them to RL Composer 2 atop Kimi Base 2.5 without attribution: https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491 https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491 / https://archive.vn/CcdkI https://archive.vn/CcdkI Composer 2 performed differently on evals than Moonshot.ai's coding models: Cursor claims theirs is better than Claude Opus 4.6: https://x.com/fynnso/status/2034706304875602030 https://x.com/fynnso/status/2034706304875602030 / https://archive.vn/bVtik https://archive.vn/bVtik. And, per Lee Robinson (Cursor employee), it is very likely Cursor builds its own foundational model for Composer 3.
- WalterGR 5mo ago> they asked you to 'advertise' them basically. To be clear, the “advertising” clause just requires you to disclose that you use the thing somewhere in the product, such as credits in an “About” section.
- giancarlostoro 5mo agoI all it advertising clause, because I remember still in the 2000s seeing an Apple ad which at the end of it showed "Unix" or something like that on it, and I remembered that was one of the BSD license requirements, or maybe Apple just did it also just to proudly boast using Unix.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- WalterGR 5mo agoHmm… I may be confusing the following clause from the “new” BSD license with the advertising clause from the original BSD license. > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The 2-clause BSD license omits even that.
- pocketarc 5mo agoThey were definitely proudly boasting being a certified UNIX OS (and macOS still is), it goes deeper than just software licenses: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
- skrtskrt 5mo agoIt seems tacked on pretty quickly - I would have expected they try a little more legalese regarding what counts as a "user interface".