Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffsm8 | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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

[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License

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.

What DoD has to do with a release of this model?

I guess they're asking for some type of export restrictions.

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.

Link to the actual project license, since it hasn't been referenced yet:

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com