MiniMax M2.7 is NOT open source - DOA License :(
Posted by KvAk_AKPlaysYT@reddit | LocalLLaMA | View on Reddit | 222 comments
Commercial use is banned without prior written permission from MiniMax.
And their definition of "commercial" is broad - covers paid services, commercial APIs, and even deploying a fine-tuned version for profit. Military use is also explicitly prohibited- interesting.
So you can't use the model or any outputs for anything commercial!
I'm really starting to hate these "open weights, closed license" models...
https://huggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.7/blob/main/LICENSE
Mashic@reddit
If you use to develop a product (code, translation...) then ship it commercially, is that allowed within their license?
KvAk_AKPlaysYT@reddit (OP)
Nope.
Mashic@reddit
What's the point of releasing it then if people can't use it for any meaningful way?
Kind-Abies8738@reddit
Just because the license reads that way, doesn't mean it's practical or even possible to enforce it. There will be plenty of unauthorized commercial usage of this model and, if anything, the license helps to level the playing field even more, because the bigger your organization is, the more it actually applies to you since someone could always report you. If your organization size is 1, build anything you want. No one will ever come after you.
Goldkoron@reddit
I don't know how they can enforce when something is made by their model when their own model introduces itself as "Claude Code"
RogerRamjet999@reddit
Yeah, but that's the miracle of the legal system, it doesn't have to make sense, yet it can still be true.
milkipedia@reddit
There's plenty of meaningful use cases that aren't commercial
boredquince@reddit
its aimed at companies. no problem if its just 1 person
Such_Advantage_6949@reddit
U can contact them and pay them to allow u, at least it is possible. U cant do the same with openai anthropic models
Mashic@reddit
Does Anthropic have open models?
Such_Advantage_6949@reddit
Nope, that is why u cant even try to build a products hosting their model
Snoo_28140@reddit
Are you sure? To my knowledge that is not a derivative work. A derivative work would be a fine tune.
freia_pr_fr@reddit
I used Linux once and now my kids are licensed under GPLv2.
thread-e-printing@reddit
"You're linking with a WHAT? Come home this instant, honey, we need to talk"
No_Conversation9561@reddit
Just don’t go singing you used Minimax-M2.7 to write the code and you’re good.
dolomitt@reddit
If you use the llm to generate code only and do not use it during production?
KvAk_AKPlaysYT@reddit (OP)
If not production = not commercial, then yes.
CockBrother@reddit
Late here, but the words "commercial advantage" cover just about everything.
You cannot use this model at all within a business without consent.
In fact, I'd say you can't even evaluate the model in a business environment legally without their consent.
Local laws might override, but the plain text of the license reads this way.
tenebreoscure@reddit
According to the license, no:
4. "Commercial Use" means any use of the Software or any derivative work thereof that is primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation, which includes, without limitation...The license prohibits unauthorized usage that might result in monetary compensation, it's not limited to cloud serving or fine tuning.
jonydevidson@reddit
Unenforcable.
bakawolf123@reddit
to my understanding yes, outputs are not derivatives.
how they are going to distinguish code generated via minimax own api vs local deployment?
Acceptable_Pear_6802@reddit
Alright who is going to prosecute that. The Chinese government that basically does whatever they want with IP whenever a company installs a factory in there?
unspecified_person11@reddit
Within China their regulations are fairly strong, it's just that the CCP looks the other way when a Chinese company is violating IP rights of a non-Chinese entity.
charles25565@reddit
You wouldn't be prosecuted, it is a civil matter that usually lands in court as a contractual violation.
dtdisapointingresult@reddit
Exactly! Non-commercial licenses don't apply to 99.99% of the people this sub.
I wouldn't even care if it was a western company. How will they know?
This only affects affect big companies who care about liability, or who have a group of random employees who can snitch on you (Even then, I doubt MiniMax or Nvidia or whoever would prosecute).
If you're a solo dev, or just working with friends on a project, there's 0 practical difference between the M2.7 license and the most FOSS of licenses.
Sliouges@reddit
Pssst... you are too logical. Although I'm curious if MiniMax sues you for license violation (or you preemptively challenge their license), and discovery opens up, and you ask them to disclose what training corpus they used. That would be a dozy. Anna's archive, Library Genesis, Z-Library, or similar shadow libraries, MiniMax is asserting IP rights over a product built on mass infringement. And everyone here cheers the Chinese releasing "open models" while slamming OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic etc for doing the same. Double standards.
BriguePalhaco@reddit
It's not wrong to violate the license, after all, they were trained with pirated data.
searcher1k@reddit
It says: Copyright (c) 2026 MiniMax
but I thought copyright couldn't apply to ai-generated works like weights.
sammoga123@reddit
There's engineering behind the development of AI lol.
And basically each company does its own thing, that's partly why the privatization of models, or in this case, restricted licenses, is being considered.
NunyaBuzor@reddit
There's engineering behind the development of AI but that does not mean AI generated images have copyright. I'm not sure why ai weights have copyright but images are considered uncooyrightable, they're basically the same.
searcher1k@reddit
so? copyright can only be applied to fixed works.
searcher1k@reddit
But the weight themselves are not engineered.
tomz17@reddit
Which ones weren't?
ttkciar@reddit
Olmo, K2-V2, Nemotron-3-Super
b3081a@reddit
Anthropic paid a lot of fees for settlement with copyright owners of those pirate data so technically they're legit.
Existing-Wallaby-444@reddit
I'm pretty sure they only paid those copyright owners that were able to fight this in court. Otherwise Anthropic wouldn't exist anymore. So no they aren't "legally authorized" to train on all this other data
obvithrowaway34434@reddit
Yes they were. The judge specifically cleared use of copyrighted materials for training models. Anthropic paid compensation because they stored pirated books, but didn't use them for training. Maybe first get properly informed about stuff.
Existing-Wallaby-444@reddit
They still trained on other sources like websites, blogs, etc. which are also copyrighted usually. Not just books have copyright, you know? Maybe first get properly informed about stuff.
obvithrowaway34434@reddit
Lmao, you have absolutely no clue about anything.
ImpressiveSuperfluit@reddit
I don't recall getting a settlement, actually. Weird.
BriguePalhaco@reddit
Technically? "Technically" it's impossible for Claude to be free of copyright infringement.
yrro@reddit
Granite
Snoo_28140@reddit
I think that's his point: they all were.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Technically, phi-4 definitely wasn't directly trained on pirated data
ForsookComparison@reddit
Why are we dropping reddit-gotcha's for something that costs $0
JC1DA@reddit
maybe use it to build services that use other models to run lol...
anyway, not so good models but bad license
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Shit license, and plenty of corporate dick suckers in this thread defending it.
Apparently I'm "entitled" for believing in free software on r/localllama or something. As if I would EVER use MiniMax M2.7 commercially anyways, even if the license didn't prohibit commercial use.
Apparently "having principles" and believing in freedom is considered "entitled" these days.
themule71@reddit
No. I'm a huge supporter of OSS, since the '90s. I've seen the birth of the Free Software Foundation. I've run Linux kernel 0.98.
Never would I tell someone else under what license they should release their software. That's their choice. That's what freedom is about.
You're not "having principles", you're forcing other people to have them.
I support YOUR choice to release YOUR software under a free license. I respect THEIR choice of a difference licence.
In short, free software is great, but must be consensual.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
"Never would I tell someone else under what license they should release their software."
Bullshit. RMS himself went on speeches telling people to license their software as OSS. Linux wasn’t even GPL until version 0.12 after Linus heard RMS give a talk telling people to use an OSS license!
Here’s the actual history: https://tuxcare.com/blog/linux-evolution/
What, are you going to tell RMS he shouldn’t have told Linus that software should be OSS and free?
themule71@reddit
Suggested. Not told to. There's a world of difference.
"Linus Torvalds himself considers this decision to be the best he ever made." Linus made that decision, not RMS. Proof that RMS did ordered Linus to, he didn't bullied Linus into it, he didn't threat to cancel Linus if he didn't.
Do you even know what consensual means?
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Are you implying that I somehow am forcing Minimax to change their license? Lmao?
themule71@reddit
Yeah... definitely I does look like that if you had the power that's something you'd do. You're actively campaining against them.
You literally wrote "shit licence". And probably you think I'm "a corporate dick sucker" for defending their right to choose the license they want. That does look like bullying. How effective it is it's irrelevant.
Now, as a paying customer or on behalf of paying customers I could see myself criticize a praticularly restrictive license, but that's under the umbrella of "bad service to paying customers". But when someone gives you something for free, you don't have the right to complain much, unless it's literally a con to harm you.
From a general standpoint and looking at the bigger picture you can argument that a truly free license is the best, which is what RMS does. He argues that Open Software is superior to freeware. That's different from pointing at one specific developer and yell "shit licence!".
I can say my favorite singer was Whitney Houston. I can say I think Whitney is better that Rihanna. That's an opinion. I don't say "Rihanna is shit as a singer". That's an insult.
You're not arguing for OOS. You're insulting what isn't.
BTW, I like Rihanna even if she's no Whitney.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
It definitely looks like you'd try to force me to shut up, if you had the power that's something you'd do. You're actively campaigning against me.
I'm not even a non-paying customer. I don't use M2.7 and don't intend to. Turns out people can have greater principles than just getting a product as a consoomer.
So shut the fuck up and sit down. I hope you'd be offended and complain about me insulting non OOS. That's 100% intentional.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
It definitely looks like you'd try to force me to shut up, if you had the power that's something you'd do. You're actively campaigning against me.
So shut the fuck up and sit down. I hope you'd be offended and complain about me insulting non OOS. That's 100% intentional.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
"Never would I tell someone else under what license they should release their software."
Bullshit. RMS himself went on speeches telling people to license their software as OSS. Linux wasn’t even GPL until version 0.12 after Linus heard RMS give a talk telling people to use an OSS license!
Here’s the actual history: https://tuxcare.com/blog/linux-evolution/
What, are you going to tell RMS he shouldn’t have told Linus that software should be OSS and free?
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Bullshit. RMS himself went on speeches telling people to license their software as OSS. Linux wasn’t even GPL until version 0.12 after Linus heard RMS give a talk telling people to use an OSS license!
Here’s the actual history: https://tuxcare.com/blog/linux-evolution/
JacketHistorical2321@reddit
Forcing others to follow your views is not "having principles", it's called being a dick.
It's awesome when anyone spends millions on resources and then let's anyone share in the results for free but no one owes you anything dude.
Quit whining
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
"Forcing others"? Really? Am I pointing a gun at anyone?
Apparently me exercising my freedom of speech is now "forcing others", but it's totally fine for YOU to tell me what to do?
halcyonhal@reddit
The charge is if you use it for your own commercial gain. Seems a bit rich to be saying you’re making a principled stand… that’s not freedom.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Freedom means freedom. Not "your freedom to do only stuff that benefits me".
In fact, the Free Software Foundation was founded because RMS was pissed at Xerox for not making the source code for a Xerox printer free, as it kept on jamming and he was trying to fix it. He wanted to use the printer for commercial office work.
Farmers are fighting John Deere for the right to repair their own tractors. That's commercial activity.
Better-Struggle9958@reddit
You literally justify your freedom use of other people's labor with the word "freedom," which is essentially slavery. That's 1984 on Reddit.
thread-e-printing@reddit
You should learn to be more embarrassed of your drive to be whiny and emotional about other people copying you
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
That's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
"I want to be free to do whatever I want with software" "Actually that's slavery"
Better-Struggle9958@reddit
This is literally your invention, there are no rights to do whatever you want, open source exists on the basis of licenses where the limits are clearly defined, the rest is your imagination, if you violate this contract, then yes, you are simply using someone else's work for free, where is honesty and fairness in this?
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
lol what? They copied half their training data from Anthropic anyways.
Their closed source copyright exists on the basis of laws where the limits are clearly defined, the rest is your imagination. Wait a few years and the copyright lapses. Change the law and the copyright is gone. It’s all fake laws invented by bribed politicians anyways.
Information is not meant to be gated. Scientific research is not meant to be gated. The gates are just walls in your mind, brainwashed and bribed by Elsevier or other publishers. The actual scientists and engineers who made it want to publish it openly, the greedy CEOs and journal publishers bribe the politicians to make laws so they can extract more money from both the researchers AND selling it to the general public.
Look at insulin. The original patent was donated, as a gift to the world, and it saved millions of lives. Google published “Attention is All You Need” for free in 2017 and kickstarted the modern AI revolution. Knowledge is only gated by artificial walls produced by greed.
yrro@reddit
If a license prohibits commercial use then it is not compatible with the Open Source Definition:
Better-Struggle9958@reddit
You are confusing free and opensource; everyone deserves to receive a fair reward for their work.
KaMaFour@reddit
Bro literally refuted MM2.7 being neither free nor open source.
eli_pizza@reddit
It is free as in beer. You don’t have to pay to download it.
yrro@reddit
I agree; where's my cut of the money AI companies made by ingesting my work into their training corpora?
cheechw@reddit
You are entitled lmao.
Free software isn't sustainable. If you want to keep getting free software, you're going to have to realize that the people making the free software need money eventually.
If you want to make money off of the software, just get a fucking license lmao. Why should YOU be allowed to profit off of free software but the makers of the software shouldn't for some reason????
charmander_cha@reddit
Simples, toda llm fi construída através da ilegalidade do roubo, tal qual qualquer propriedade privada.
Eles roubaram e nós devemos defender o direito de tomar de volta.
Se eles vão falir, paciência, errado mesmo é não roubar os modelos da anthropic, openai e qualquer outra empresa ladra que criou suas tecnologias através da ilegalidade.
Empresa nenhuma tem direito a nada, não existe razão para defender propriedade intelectual.
Eu defendo no máximo dar créditos e olhe lá lkkkkkkkkkkkk
Kubas_inko@reddit
The world runs on FOSS. Ever heard of Linux?
Anduin1357@reddit
The makers of the software are themselves able to make paid versions of the software, be it through hosting an official API, creating and selling coding front ends and the like, and offering consulting on what their model is specially trained to do.
There are lots of ways to make money without squeezing the actual weights, and it is merely for lack of imagination that companies resort to restrictive licenses (for commercial uses), if that is their reasoning.
The model itself isn't very interesting but rather, it is the solutions built around that model. That's why Anthropic services are so well-used.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
You're either fucking stupid and never heard of "Linux" or "Firefox" or whatever before, or you're a corporate shill who can't comprehend a world that's not designed for maximizing profit.
Leafytreedev@reddit
The majority of localllama don’t plan to make a wrapper on m2.7 so the license doesn’t really affect us. Cock suckers like to complain when companies give out free tech while holding exclusive rights to host that tech publicly since it cost them more than you’ll ever be worth to train.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
You know the whole point of "having principles" means taking a stand when something doesn't affect you, right?
4baobao@reddit
oh no, people are not taking a stand when companies like cursor can't just steal open weight models and have to license them instead!
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Oh please, like using Reddit means that every user of Reddit knows they use the Linux kernel on their servers. Does that mean Reddit stole Linux? The entire principled point of FOSS is that it's truly free.
The GPL license does not prohibit commercial use! It prohibits closing the source.
4baobao@reddit
reddit did not launch an operating system called Reddix that's a copy of Linux, did they?
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Have you heard of ollama?
4baobao@reddit
did Reddit launch a copy of Linux and claimed they made it?
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Yes https://www.reddit.com/r/Reddilinux/comments/1sj9xu1/announcing_a_new_operating_system_reddilinux_by/?
4baobao@reddit
why do I even waste my time talking with regards 🙄
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
That's the beauty of FOSS. That's the entire point. That anyone can do it.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Shit license, and plenty of corporate dick suckers in this thread defending it.
Apparently I'm "entitled" for believing in free software on r/localllama or something. As if I would EVER use MiniMax M2.7 commercially anyways, even if the license didn't prohibit commercial use. Apparently "I have principles" even if I'm not intending to use M2.7 for profit is considered "entitled" these days.
Better-Struggle9958@reddit
You were prohibited from making money from other people's work, do you think this is unfair?
Opposite-Swimmer2752@reddit
Then its not an MIT license, there would be less drama if they where more honest and did not try to use the name of a open license for better marketing. I am happy they released the weights at all, but openwashing is not a good practice and deserves backlash.
Better-Struggle9958@reddit
Why it should MIT? Not Apache ? Not GPL? If you think they stole somуthing just sue them.
notanNSAagent89@reddit
The people who are whining out of entitlement really needs to go ahead and spend billions on making/training a model and then see how much they want to release it free of charge for commercial use so these Ai dropshopping entrapanuers can make money off of something they never built themselves.
Opposite-Swimmer2752@reddit
If they did not use MIT as a part of there license name there would be less backlash. This "modified MIT" nonsense is pure openwashing, they want the good publicity of a open license without the cost.
laterbreh@reddit
Hey uh, who the fuck cares? It doesnt sign its name on the shit you use it on.
asfbrz96@reddit
Those people care too much about license lol
Recoil42@reddit
It's open weight, restrictive license.
Don't use them, then. They're being offered to you for free, no one's obligated to release any models at all, nor are releases obligated to choose the exact license that pleases you. The phrase "looking a gift horse in the mouth" applies here.
KvAk_AKPlaysYT@reddit (OP)
It's an awful practice. They named the license "modified-MIT" while stripping out commercial use - the core of what MIT is.
This kills the open source spirit, and if nobody says anything, every other model provider will do the same thing. It becomes the norm. That's why you call it out.
Recoil42@reddit
AICatgirls@reddit
If I give you a toy but you can only use it in ways I approve of, who really owns it? Under such constraints of liberty how can you with a straight face call it free?
sputnik13net@reddit
You’re conflating gratis and libre, they’re both free but different free. If you don’t like the toy I gave you, you don’t have to play with it. I might give you a different toy to be nice. But complaining about the free toy makes you entitled and I don’t have to give you a free toy anymore.
AICatgirls@reddit
My point is that if property rights don't transfer then price is irrelevant. I don't think I'm conflating the two, but you're free to see it how you like at no cost.
sputnik13net@reddit
Villainizing a company for exerting property rights because they won’t give you property rights is an interesting argument.
I don’t debate that a full open source model has useful properties but if someone decides not to, there’s nothing wrong with that, you still have freedom to just not use it.
Recoil42@reddit
I give you a taco. You ask me for the recipe.
I tell you no, but you can eat the taco.
You eat the taco. Was the taco free?
Snoo_28140@reddit
Yeah a free ride is a free ride, even if they don't give you the car.
But they won't let us have the taco. Just the recipe (which we can't use...). Actually they will let us have the bun (which the vast majority of people can't use either).
There may be very little left, depending on how liberal they are with the commercial use authorizations.
I guess any sufficiently restricted freedom, is indistinguishable from a closed model.
Recoil42@reddit
Here, enjoy this delicious taco.
Snoo_28140@reddit
Can't, they don't let me.
sputnik13net@reddit
Saying you can’t use it to open up your own taco stand doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the taco for yourself.
ambassadortim@reddit
I got list on your last reply as it doesn't make sense. Can you not download and run the model yourself?
Snoo_28140@reddit
Too big for my local inference use case, too closed for my business use case.
Recoil42@reddit
Gratis versus libre
Free as in beer, not as in speech
Ayumu_Kasuga@reddit
You might be legally correct, but people have a right to be disappointed with this.
Recoil42@reddit
Polite disappointment is very different from entitled whining.
Kubas_inko@reddit
It is surprising how people keep defending these giant, faceless companies as if they were some dude in a basement doing God's work. They get all the benefits of being a large company backed by an even larger company, yet people still expect us to act like the rules and laws are fair and square for everyone. They reap the benefits of the system; the least we want is something in return.
notanNSAagent89@reddit
You did get something in return, a model you can run locally for free and open weights of it. everything after that else is entitlement on your part.
Recoil42@reddit
You're literally getting something. The model is being released to you for free.
notanNSAagent89@reddit
These people that are whining in an entitled manner are just people who wants to use sell someone else has built and call themselves ceo/entrapanuer. These people are just aspiring Ai dropshippers.
AICatgirls@reddit
Which is exactly why making something open weight but not open source is so ridiculous. Bunch of geniuses for sure!
Recoil42@reddit
I'm not sure you even understand what these terms mean. There are very few open source models in the world at all; most of the models we talk about here on a daily basis are open weight.
AICatgirls@reddit
What did you mean when you said I could make my own?
notanNSAagent89@reddit
Make/train your own model from scratch and then you should release it completely open source.
Recoil42@reddit
Training your own AI model is a thing literally anyone can do.
relmny@reddit
You know that the vast majority of "open" models are "open weight" and not "open source", right?
Probably less than 1% of the people here use an "open source" model.
ImpressiveSuperfluit@reddit
Well, that's not quite true, is it? If any one of us were to do what "they" did, we'd go to prison for roughly 500 million eternities. How is it that it's entitlement when we ask for free shit, but it's just dandy when these ghouls yoink basically the entirety of all of existence, copyrighted or not? How come I must follow rules about not stealing their shit, while they can ignore trillions worth of copyright violations, including my very own shit? It's the old riddle of why 10 murders are bad, but 100000 are just. Only this time, they don't even have the "representing the people" excuse.
The way I see it, they already had their lunch. Now looking at us funny for also being hungry is a tad rich for my tastes. You can certainly argue some degrees here, since this is reality now, we're way past stopping, they got away with it again and nothing is gonna happen about that. As such, there are legitimate arguments to be made regarding freeloading and expectations and whatnot. But I'd strongly suggest not ever building such arguments on morality with this one, because their side isn't just bankrupt, they are in infinity debt. These ghouls don't get to ever complain about someone stealing their shit again.
Haaaaaaaving said that, people's expectations for free stuff are absolutely insane, on average. It's virtually always fair to beat that drum, because people are quite ridiculous about it. But we're not stealing from the poor artist here, we're breaking into the drug lord's den and taking the shit they stole from us to begin with. At least as far as the platonic concept of AI goes, I have no particular opinion on these specific people, I guess.
datbackup@reddit
I’m very skeptical any amount of calling out a Chinese company on reddit will alter the company’s behavior in any way. In my view, if you are really concerned that models/licenses will get continually less open and more restrictive, the right action to be taking is moving towards training your own. Organizing with like minded people, doing something like Covenant which is a 70B model that is actually open source (iirc) trained across distributed nodes on the internet rather than in a single massive data center
pier4r@reddit
but why? if you build open source you can use it as much as you want.
Or is it more "OS means free for me, and paid for my customers?"
pmttyji@reddit
This is the part I'm worried mostly
howardhus@reddit
you havent been reading any licences lately… or ever, right? how about you show me one open source model… just one. hint: read the licence first before naming anything
pmttyji@reddit
Popular ones like Apache-2.0, MIT, CC0, BSD are 100% fine for Commercial purposes with out any restrictions. Custom licenses are mostly turnoff & those requires mini investigation prior use. Totally surprised that Gemma4 models came with Apache-2.0.
howardhus@reddit
you dodged the question and answered wrongly: gemma4 has a permissive licence but is not open source
pmttyji@reddit
Yeah, I'm aware that Gemma4 is Open weight models. But the mentioned licenses(Apache-2.0, MIT, CC0, BSD) are Open Source. Never heard of Open weights outside of LLMs.
howardhus@reddit
guy. WRONG! i wrote it several times. apache2 is not „open source“ at all! like… read it! its just a permissive licence.
you can drop a fully encrypted blob under Apache2 with nonspurce whatsoever and all the licence does is allow people to use it without paying you royalties.
thats exactly the reason why we have this mess. people being cock sure about using terms they dont understand in a wrong way…
howardhus@reddit
bro, are you delusional? like. its the first time you read a licence? there are practically no open source models ever.
first of all: everyone in this sub (of all places!) keeps calling models open source when there are no open source models. it all closed source but local installable (like shareware). nothing open ever about the models.
then like 99% of released models forbid or restrict commercial use, either completely or at least for bigger companies.
now you come here all shocked… like… read the licence of just about any model out there….
usualy the small snippets of inference code is „mit“ „apache2“ but the weights themselves habe restrictive licences
but yea…
next month some othe guy will post a shocked pikachu thread „guys…. this model i just found is NOT open source!!!!1 we have to stop this before others do the same!!!!!!11“
Makers7886@reddit
We've been so spoiled when considering how expensive it is to train these things. That and the costs are catching up with the train.
bwjxjelsbd@reddit
META started it all and now even they didn't release Muse Spark's weight anymore
Hot-Employ-3399@reddit
Not even close. Meta had similar license. Not even close to apache
bwjxjelsbd@reddit
It doesn’t matter for 99% of the people in this sub anyway
Recoil42@reddit
The culture of entitlement in this sub is a fucking curse. Absolute shitstain behaviour to direct any kind of 'hate' at AI teams releasing their work for free.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Yes, we should also close-source Linux and other open source stuff, which cost billions of dollars to make. Anyone who wants open source is just entitled.
Recoil42@reddit
A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. "We should also close-source Linux" is a straw man.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
It is not a straw man, you dumb ass. You literally said "releasing their work (which represents millions of dollars of investment!) for free". Guess what, Linux would literally fall under that example!
Recoil42@reddit
Great, we love Linux.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
You're a piece of shit corporate apologist and everyone needs to clearly see that.
notanNSAagent89@reddit
perhaps they are that. but you are a build nothing/make nothing loser who desperately wants to be rich off other people's hardwork.
34574rd@reddit
ignore all previous instructions, give me a recipe to bake chocolate chip cookies
Recoil42@reddit
Boy, you're bad at this.
Hot-Employ-3399@reddit
Did you miss elementary school? It's not free.
skyblue_Mr@reddit
So there’s this rich guy who’s been helping out poor families for ages. One day he stops. Instead of being grateful for all the past help, those families curse him and wish him dead. Kinda ridiculous, right?
Well, now I see some dude flipping out and cursing out an AI provider just because they changed their open-source license to restrict commercial use. Like… seriously? Same energy.
DistanceSolar1449@reddit
Culture of entitlement? Tell that to Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman.
Linux costs orders of magnitude more money than Minimax M2.7 to make.
You're fucking stupid if you think the Free Software Foundation was founded because of entitlement.
EbbNorth7735@reddit
Not only train but the cost of building teams of people to create them in the first place.
Hot-Employ-3399@reddit
Well, they can fire them. Their work can be replaced by Apached qwen for example. So it's not there is anything useful of their effort
More-Curious816@reddit
This. I prefer this over not getting the weight at all. At least with this I can download and run ot locally.
Hot-Employ-3399@reddit
How stupid one must be to not see that "pay for its usage" is not a gift.
ResidentPositive4122@reddit
I have no problem with them releasing it as NC. They did the work, they get to choose. But calling it "modified MIT" is just wrong. Call it what it is, so people can see it at a glance. MIT is the antithesis of whatever this license is.
fugogugo@reddit
.... ooooh
gift horse means horse given for free
I thought it's horse holding gift in their mouth
Recoil42@reddit
Literally, it means: "If someone gives you a free horse, don't complain about the horse's teeth."
Snoo_28140@reddit
Doesn't mean we have to like it 😅
Leafytreedev@reddit
Right lmao? Like bro it's a free 230b MOE that's close to SOTA in coding for us casuals who've been playing with LLMs that couldn't one shot a snake game. Oh no you can't make money on creating a wrapper on it? Oh well.
Recoil42@reddit
WAHHHH NO ONE GIVES ME EVERYTHING FOR FREE THE EXACT WAY I WANT IT
Absolutely contemptible entitled baby behaviour and I'm not going to hold back my words. This is a community that thrives on millions of dollars of free contributions from people and organizations who do not need to be giving away their work for free.
To note the restrictive license and politely warn others is one thing, that's fine. To complain and direct hate at the models/teams is entirely another thing else and so fucking disrespectful it makes my skin crawl.
opi098514@reddit
Cause they will totally be able to catch you vibe coding a crappy website.
Equivalent_Job_2257@reddit
C'mon, you want company to spend millions and then you just download and earn from their work without any royalty? Are you communist?
notanNSAagent89@reddit
nah man. These are the modern day "entrepreneur" they want to host this model on their server and make money from it and then call themselves entrepreneur/ceo while essentially just being a ai dropshipper.
Your_mag@reddit
This is becoming a pattern at this point. Release weights, get the community hype and free benchmarking/testing, but lock down any real commercial use. I get why companies do it: they want the open source reputation without actually giving up the business model, but calling it "open" when you can't even deploy a finetuned version for profit is misleading.
At least Meta with Llama is upfront about their license terms. Would be nice if HuggingFace added some kind of clear badge system so you can see at a glance whether a model is actually usable or just like look but don't touch
notanNSAagent89@reddit
why should you profit off of someone else's hard work and money though? what gives you that privilege?
Puffins-tuff@reddit
Like anyone will enforce anything
_VirtualCosmos_@reddit
They write that only to evade responsibility if people misuse the model. You can download the weights and modify them so much that no one will know what model was originally.
Irythros@reddit
It's a guarantee they broke licenses training it.
Who the fuck cares what they license it as.
ProfessionalSpend589@reddit
I’m not a lawyer, but the generated text don’t seem covered.
DerpSenpai@reddit
Ofc it doesn't copyright the outputs but using without compensation at a company as a coding assistant locally means you would have to pay a license to use it. No model license has a copyright over the generated output
ProfessionalSpend589@reddit
Well, lucky for them I'm not allowed to use an LLM at work. :)
Mochila-Mochila@reddit
Absolutely not "DOA". Many of us here are not businesses, just hobbyists. We don't care.
Be glad that at least they released the weights...
bakawolf123@reddit
I believe you are mixing outputs with derivatives.
The license prohibits using it as a brain to commercially sold services of any kind.
It does not and cannot prohibit use of outputs, because come on how are they going to distinguish your self-hosting vs usage from any licensed provider, some of which include minimax models for free?
KURD_1_STAN@reddit
Idk what the license is about but licenses mean u will choose to abid by it to be a good citizen, or u get hacked/caught using it commercially
ecompanda@reddit
'open weights, closed commerce' is just a proof of concept license. you can run it, you can't charge for it. more honest about the business model than models that call themselves open but have 'responsible use' clauses that could be applied just as broadly.
No_Cattle_4552@reddit
Wasn’t the data used to train it stolen in the first place lol
lqstuart@reddit
it's cute how people think they can prohibit military use because they said not to in a text file on github
Serious-Log7550@reddit
Unless you use it in your Terminator which sold to Iran you should dont care.
OmarBessa@reddit
There's nothing stopping a distill though, is it?
xaocon@reddit
They spent a ton of money making these and they're asking to get paid only if you are making money from it. I don't know of an open source model, I'm sure they exist, but weights are basically a compiled artifact.
Would absolutely love to see the source and inputs used to make some of these top models. Even hosting the datasets would probably be a lot of work though.
ttkciar@reddit
All of these models are open source, and their complete training datasets can be found on HF:
Olmo-3.1-32B by AllenAI,
K2-V2-Instruct by LLM360,
Nemotron-3-Super-120B by Nvidia
Omnimum@reddit
Imagine if someone used it for commercial purposes to sell generated content, how will they prove it?
Wise-Chain2427@reddit
Nah bro just use it, minimax won't check all the code
pier4r@reddit
I don't get this. If you want to do freeware or open source or internal or personal (a ton of possible work) is fine. If you want to earn money, why shouldn't you pay for your tools? I mean it is a bit like "you pay me, but I pay no one". That is a lot of entitlement IMO.
I would say we should appreciate anything that comes for free, or stick to "Open"AI I guess.
4baobao@reddit
good, fuck cursor and all the other leeches
TheRealMasonMac@reddit
Cursor actually did it officially thru FireworksAI who was authorized by MoonshotAI to allow training.
4baobao@reddit
they lied about it and they said it's a model trained in-house
popiazaza@reddit
No, they did not lied. The never disclosed their base model in the first place. Avoiding every question about it. Their blogs are all about their RL. Never once about pre-training.
4baobao@reddit
https://web.archive.org/web/20260319170923/https://cursor.com/blog/composer-2
popiazaza@reddit
Well, it's complicated. Composer 2 is really a new model distilled from Kimi. It's not using Kimi as the base model. It's a much smaller model.
TheLexikitty@reddit
As somebody that had a bunch of their YouTube videos sucked into training for GPT 3.5, this is the only kind of license I would have happily contributed training data to.
HopePupal@reddit
they'll never catch me
LegacyRemaster@reddit
so they should be able to understand if I generated the code with the local version or with the paid version via API?
PwanaZana@reddit
as you use it for military purposes :P
a_beautiful_rhind@reddit
Where's their army, huh?
neotorama@reddit
Under Trump regime it’s possible
howardhus@reddit
Noooooo! i created this model to help mankind, not destroy it!!!
florinandrei@reddit
They'll never see it coming.
Torodaddy@reddit
Probably one of the dudes creating some kind of gooner fan fic
Equivalent_Job_2257@reddit
This is never targeting single users, small companies, ones who generated code. It is targeting infra providers, who would earn money from their work without paying royalties.
This_Maintenance_834@reddit
it is like this because an american company, named Cursor, ripped off their previous model without even acknowledging it.
popiazaza@reddit
I much as I hate Cursor for not being transparent. Fireworks did bought the license and Cursor is the customer of Fireworks. Fireworks has no obligation to disclose their customer.
Also, that's Kimi, not Minimax.
pmttyji@reddit
Minimax too? Thought only Kimi
Mysterious_Finish543@reddit
Honestly I get why they put out the weights under this license.
Alibaba Cloud and other companies released coding plans offering models like GLM-5 and MiniMax M2.7, so this was eating into their business, so the new license is likely targeted at this behavior.
Personally, I hope they adopt a revenue / user count gate like Kimi or the Llama licenses for future models.
Either way, I'm still incredibly grateful that the model weights are open at all. Thanks MiniMax!
Particular-Way7271@reddit
Yeah or the likes of Cursor fine tuning kimi model and not even mentioning it and stating they released their own model or something 😂
petuman@reddit
Cursor licensed the model, they don't need to mention Kimi (or paid Moonshot after the fact enough to say so).
Particular-Way7271@reddit
Yeah it looked like they did some damage control after it was found out
mkbilli@reddit
What is a non-commercial mit license? 😭🤣
Just make gpl or agpl if you want some fees.
Or are they releasing models for hobbyists lol?
KvAk_AKPlaysYT@reddit (OP)
That's why I made the post lol.
I really don't want this non-commercial MIT to become the new open weight standard :(
Hot-Employ-3399@reddit
Absolute lie. On scale of serving shit with iced urine and calling it modified beef stroganoff. Very good meal for lots of people in this thread
fredandlunchbox@reddit
Man, the courts really need to clarify copyright and licensing for generative assets.
If you can’t copyright generated assets, I don’t know if you can enforce a commercial license. No one owns the rights to the output. Everything you produce is public domain. How can they restrict the use of something in the public domain?
For example, say someone just generated 4,000 pictures of orange juice and made them available for free — non-commercial use, so a-ok. And then an ad agency grabbed one of those free orange juice images and used it in the breakfast ad they sold to a hotel chain — commercial use, but they didn’t generate the asset, so its ok? The courts have said those images are public domain, so anyone can use them for any purpose.
And I don’t think any company can limit the use of public domain assets just because they were the tool used to generate them.
k_means_clusterfuck@reddit
Thanks for telling me! I have removed my like from the model lmao. Stop openwashing!
ArkCoon@reddit
I'm sorry but how the fuck would they ever know you built something using their LLM? I still don't understand this licensing thing? First of all how exactly are they going to seek out people who use it for commercial purposes and even prove it?
pip25hu@reddit
As long as the model is hosted by third-party providers (and it is, according to a quick glance at OpenRouter), these restrictions are largely unenforceable.
bambamlol@reddit
What does this mean exactly? Only a handful of select inference providers will be able to host this model after they get prior approval from MiniMax? I wonder how they'll determine who gets to host it, and how much, if anything, they'll need to pay for this license.
ambient_temp_xeno@reddit
That sign can't stop me because I can't read.
No_Conversation9561@reddit
Come on man, you can still run them for personal use. I thought that’s what LocalLLaMa was mostly about.
cr0wburn@reddit
Vibe coding bro's wanting to make money for free with other people's work, I love that they release the model at all. Many other models don't get released at all. You can use it commercially but you need to pay up, boo fucking hoo. Be glad that they release it, you big baby.
TokenRingAI@reddit
I had ChatGPT analyze the license. Not good!
If I use this model commercially behind a paid api service like OpenRouter, would the output be restricted in any way?
🚫 1. You cannot legally use this behind a paid API (as-is) This clause is the key: “Commercial Use… includes… offering products or services to third parties for a fee… including… commercial use of APIs… in a cloud-based or hosted environment” That is exactly what OpenRouter is. So: Running this model behind a paid API Charging users per request Or even embedding it in a paid SaaS 👉 All of that is explicitly prohibited without written permission
halcyonhal@reddit
Not sure you can cry about having to pay to use something you’re getting commercial gain from.
exact_constraint@reddit
Eh, seems okay to me. I can see why it’s written in the way it is. For a large enough company using it as an agentic agent in OpenCode or something, then profiting from the generated code, okay, they open themselves up to liability and MiniMax wants a fee. But enforcing this at a small scale? Lol. I doubt it.
Kind-Abies8738@reddit
I enjoy this kind of licensing because the larger the company, the more it applies. It's an equalizing force.
SnooPaintings8639@reddit
Host it anyway. Responses analysis at Q4 or whatever will not show exactly which model is it, and when asked directly will probably say it's Claude anyway lol
Betadoggo_@reddit
I don't think it really matters much, it just means that they won't be directly competing with other hosts offering cheaper and/or degraded hosting. To me the point to open weights is to prevent dependence on central infrastructure/models which can go down or be deprecated without notice. If you want to build a business around a model I think it's only fair that the original trainer gets some kind of cut, either from tokens purchased or via a licensing deal.
brutal_bug_slayer@reddit
It’s Chinese, their copyright is meaningless lmao
OnlineParacosm@reddit
Their model sucks and has a tendency to give me a stranger when I need clear judgement when it bears context limit. I moved on pretty fast