←back to thread

448 points lastdong | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.298s | source | bottom
1. Havoc ◴[] No.45114726[source]
MIT license - very nice!
replies(3): >>45115602 #>>45116122 #>>45116560 #
2. em-bee ◴[] No.45115602[source]
what does that mean in this context? it seems to depend on an LLM. so can i run this completely offline? if i have to sign up and pay for an LLM to make it work, then it's not really more useful than any other non-free system
3. ComputerGuru ◴[] No.45116122[source]
The application of known FOSS licenses to what is effectively a binary-only release is misleading and borderline meaningless.
replies(1): >>45119607 #
4. watsonmusic ◴[] No.45116560[source]
Microsoft is cool
5. Havoc ◴[] No.45119607[source]
It is an unfortunate recycling of an existing regime that no doubt offends Stallman to his very core, but I wouldn't call it meaningless.

If you're in a company and need a model which one do you think you're getting past compliance & legal - the one that says MIT or the one that says "non-commercial use only"?

replies(1): >>45131102 #
6. ◴[] No.45131102{3}[source]