51–60 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
Whatever name they come up with for a new license will be less useful, because I'll have to figure out that this is what that is
Yet another CLI. Why does every AI provider need to have its own tool, instead of contributing to existing tools like Roo Code or Opencode?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
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.
I am very disappointed they don't have an equivalent subscription for coding to the 200 EUR ChatGPT or Claude one, and it is only available for Enterprise deployments. The only thing I found is a pay-as-you-go API, but I wonder if it is any good (and cost-effective) vs Claude et al.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world. Wishing it meant "very permissively licensed" to everyone is a lost cause. And honestly it wasn't a good hill to begin with: if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license". The source code is out in the open, so it is "open source". This is why the purists have lost ground to practical…
well we don't really want to open that can of worms though, do we?
I don't agree with ceding technical terms to the rest of the world. I'm increasingly told we need to stop calling cancer detection AI "AI" or "ML" because it is not the 'bad AI' and confuses people.
I guess I'm okay with being intransigent.
llm install llm-mistral llm mistral refresh llm -m mistral/devstral-2512 "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" https://tools.simonwillison.net/svg-render#%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D... Pretty good for a 123B model! (That said I'm not 100% certain I guessed the correct model ID, I asked Mistral here: https://x.com/simonw/status/1998435424847675429 )
Yes, SVG is code, but not in a sense of executable with verifiable inputs and outputs.
> 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 com…
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?
> 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 com…
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.
I do not mind having a license like that, my gripe is with using the terms "permissive" and "open source" like that because such use dilutes them. I cannot think of any reason to do that aside from trying to dilute the term (especially when some laws, like the EU AI Act, are less restrictive when it comes to open source AIs specifically).