zlacker

> I’m not opposed to licensing but “email us for a license” is a bad sign for indie developers, in my experience.

At least they're not claiming it's Open Source / Open Weights, kind of happy about that, as other companies didn't get the memo that lying/misleading about stuff like that is bad.

>>diggan+(OP)
Yeah, a real silver-lining on the API-only access for a model that is intentionally designed for edge devices. As a user I honestly only care about the weights being open - I'm not going to reimpliment their training code and I don't need or want redistributed training data that both already exists elsewhere. There is no benefit, for my uses, to having an "open source" model when I could have weights and finetunes instead.

There's nothing to be happy about when businesses try to wall-off a feature to make you salivate over it more. You're within your right to nitpick licensing differences, but unless everyone gets government-subsidized H100s in their garage I don't think the code will be of use to anyone except moneyed competitors that want to undermine foundational work.