3 ms·

I wonder how they'll figure out who to target for litigation when this license is violated.

ffsm8 3mo ago
They haven't litigated the last public non-compliance... Despite that one being extremely public. So probably not at all for now.
- Iolaum 3mo ago
  Maybe because a non public agreement was in place?
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > They haven't litigated the last public non-compliance What was it?
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - drawnwren 3mo ago
    Cursor was thought to be but they were later found to be using an authorized provider [1] 1 - https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491?lang=en https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491?lang=...
paxys 3mo ago
How many companies host and serve models via API and have a $20M+ revenue? Going to be pretty straightforward to catch offenders.
- throwaway27448 3mo ago
  Demonstrating a company is using this model in court seems non-trivial, no? Or am I interpreting this post incorrectly.
  - amazingamazing 3mo ago
    Not at all. It is easy to bake in a specific response to a given prompt in the model.
    - throwaway27448 3mo ago
      It is trivial to contrive a distinct model that behaves the same, no? Regardless, most uses of a model won't provide direct interaction. This entire line of thought seems starved of use. Unless we're talking about LLM providers themselves... but that is a separate topic entirely
      - amazingamazing 3mo ago
        no, because you don't know what the "secret prompt" is. there could be hundreds such prompts
        throwaway27448 3mo ago
        Ok, I'll take this at face value... why would someone share this seemingly secret prompt with the prosecution?
- ayewo 3mo ago
  Yep. Cursor’s Composer 2 model is a good example, though it is not clear if they entered into an agreement with Moonshot before they got found out in March this year [1] or after. 1: https://x.com/fynnso/status/2034706304875602030 https://x.com/fynnso/status/2034706304875602030
bityard 3mo ago
Software licenses aren't enforced through litigation as much as they are enforced through the _threat_ of litigation and legal risk. In other words, pretty much every company pays lawyers to minimize legal risk. Those lawyers inevitably look at all the contracts, agreements, and software licenses, and tell the C-suite what to do in order to keep their legal exposure as low as possible. "Don't violate other companies' IP," is pretty low-hanging fruit in those conversations. It is a very rare (and ballsy, and perhaps incompetent) company that ignores their lawyers' recommendations to adhere to the letter of all of the software licenses they are bound to.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- DennisP 3mo ago
  Normal software is copyrighted. Model weights don't seem to be copyrighted, as another comment pointed out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49073127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49073127 If weights aren't copyrighted then there's no IP to license, other than the bit of software that runs the whole thing and it's probably not too hard to write that yourself. There might even be open source reimplementations soon. Lots of companies are willing to push the boundaries of IP when there's a gray area. One example is Google's implementation of a Java API when they made Android, for which they got sued, and won their case. Another example is the AI companies training their models on copyrighted material.
  - throwaway27448 3mo ago
    I'm at a bit of a loss here—is copyright formed around semantics rather than text? What are the constraints of matching these semantics?
    - DennisP 3mo ago
      From the other comment: > this was partially tested last year in Thaler v. Perlmutter which affirmed that copyright requires human authorship Model weights are not authored by humans. Neither is AI output, which is why that's not copyrighted either. In another realm, a famous photo taken by a monkey was deemed by the courts to be free of copyright.
mike_hearn 3mo ago
They have certainly trained in some secret call/response pairs that would uniquely identify Kimi serving.

ffsm8 3mo ago

They haven't litigated the last public non-compliance... Despite that one being extremely public. So probably not at all for now.

Iolaum 3mo ago
Maybe because a non public agreement was in place?
JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> They haven't litigated the last public non-compliance What was it?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- drawnwren 3mo ago
  Cursor was thought to be but they were later found to be using an authorized provider [1] 1 - https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491?lang=en https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491?lang=...

paxys 3mo ago

How many companies host and serve models via API and have a $20M+ revenue? Going to be pretty straightforward to catch offenders.

throwaway27448 3mo ago
Demonstrating a company is using this model in court seems non-trivial, no? Or am I interpreting this post incorrectly.
- amazingamazing 3mo ago
  Not at all. It is easy to bake in a specific response to a given prompt in the model.
  - throwaway27448 3mo ago
    It is trivial to contrive a distinct model that behaves the same, no? Regardless, most uses of a model won't provide direct interaction. This entire line of thought seems starved of use. Unless we're talking about LLM providers themselves... but that is a separate topic entirely
    - amazingamazing 3mo ago
      no, because you don't know what the "secret prompt" is. there could be hundreds such prompts
      - throwaway27448 3mo ago
        Ok, I'll take this at face value... why would someone share this seemingly secret prompt with the prosecution?
ayewo 3mo ago
Yep. Cursor’s Composer 2 model is a good example, though it is not clear if they entered into an agreement with Moonshot before they got found out in March this year [1] or after. 1: https://x.com/fynnso/status/2034706304875602030 https://x.com/fynnso/status/2034706304875602030

bityard 3mo ago

Software licenses aren't enforced through litigation as much as they are enforced through the _threat_ of litigation and legal risk. In other words, pretty much every company pays lawyers to minimize legal risk. Those lawyers inevitably look at all the contracts, agreements, and software licenses, and tell the C-suite what to do in order to keep their legal exposure as low as possible. "Don't violate other companies' IP," is pretty low-hanging fruit in those conversations. It is a very rare (and ballsy, and perhaps incompetent) company that ignores their lawyers' recommendations to adhere to the letter of all of the software licenses they are bound to.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
DennisP 3mo ago
Normal software is copyrighted. Model weights don't seem to be copyrighted, as another comment pointed out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49073127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49073127 If weights aren't copyrighted then there's no IP to license, other than the bit of software that runs the whole thing and it's probably not too hard to write that yourself. There might even be open source reimplementations soon. Lots of companies are willing to push the boundaries of IP when there's a gray area. One example is Google's implementation of a Java API when they made Android, for which they got sued, and won their case. Another example is the AI companies training their models on copyrighted material.
- throwaway27448 3mo ago
  I'm at a bit of a loss here—is copyright formed around semantics rather than text? What are the constraints of matching these semantics?
  - DennisP 3mo ago
    From the other comment: > this was partially tested last year in Thaler v. Perlmutter which affirmed that copyright requires human authorship Model weights are not authored by humans. Neither is AI output, which is why that's not copyrighted either. In another realm, a famous photo taken by a monkey was deemed by the courts to be free of copyright.

mike_hearn 3mo ago

They have certainly trained in some secret call/response pairs that would uniquely identify Kimi serving.