How many companies host and serve models via API and have a $20M+ revenue? Going to be pretty straightforward to catch offenders.
replyYep. 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.
replyDemonstrating a company is using this model in court seems non-trivial, no? Or am I interpreting this post incorrectly.
replyNot at all. It is easy to bake in a specific response to a given prompt in the model.
replySoftware 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.
replyIt 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.
They haven't litigated the last public non-compliance... Despite that one being extremely public. So probably not at all for now.
reply> They haven't litigated the last public non-compliance
replyWhat was it?
Cursor was thought to be but they were later found to be using an authorized provider [1]
reply1 - https://x.com/Kimi_Moonshot/status/2035074972943831491?lang=...
deleted
replyMaybe because a non public agreement was in place?
replyThey have certainly trained in some secret call/response pairs that would uniquely identify Kimi serving.
reply