Technically kimi k-3 weights license is not open weight (it has a lot of restrictions). I would classify it as ‘weight open’ similar to the bsl and fsl ’source open’ licenses.
replyweight available
replyIt happens. Most open licenses aren't GPL style copyleft.
replyThere is little to no point reading the article as well. It's stripped of all alpha.
reply> task and environment feedback
> on-policy planning and learning
> feedback connects decisions to their consequences
These are deliberately the least informative phrases you could possibly use to describe what you have done, while still being in the realm of words that go over a generic investor who has no idea whats going on and may be dazzled by sciencey sounding language.
Cursor compose 2.5 article where they used and described on policy self distilation was actual alpha.
This is precisely my point.
replyAren't Cursor Composer models like this too? At some point all the extra RL you do can be considered as proprietary information added.
replyNot suggesting this is right or wrong, but is sort of the nature of the technology.
deleted
replyIt happens with open source software all the time, why would we expect any different with open source weights.
replyBecause we do. The GPL isn't a suggestion. If you can take open source code and make private software out of it then what are we all doing? No, license requirements and agreement are law for a reason.
replyKimi K3 has its own license which is permissive, it isn't at all like GPL https://github.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K3/blob/main/LICENSE
replyGPL is a specific license, it’s not FLOSS as a whole
replyBecause the licenses that apply to software make no sense in the context of LLMs. With the latter, there is no source code to license.
replyThe words of a license are what the license is.
Which is fine, that’s legal according to the license
replydeleted
reply