Skip to main content

​
Why this is not pedantry

Each phrase on the left is puncturable by one person who checks. “Open source” invites someone to look up the licence and find revenue thresholds in it. “Your data stays in Africa” invites someone to trace a cloud request and find it did not. “We built our own model” invites someone to ask which one. The versions on the right are less impressive and survive contact. For a product whose entire proposition is that you can trust it with your own data, a claim that does not survive checking is worse than a weaker claim that does.

​
On Kimi’s licence specifically

Broadly permissive, but it requires a separate agreement for model-as-a-service operators above USD 20M revenue over any twelve months, and attribution above 100M monthly active users or USD 20M monthly revenue. Shamwari is nowhere near either threshold. That is a fact about today, not a property of the licence, and the licence file is the thing to read before shipping — not this summary of it.

Related topics

An AI companion that refuses to send your data awayRouting and modelsGround, and why citation is the whole pointThree data scopes, not three tiers