MiniMaxAI

/

MiniMax-Text-01

like 362

Follow

MiniMax 347

Dude that's cool!!!

We are very much hoping that our model can be utilized by developers in the open source community. In reality, the main constraints in our license are related to illegal activities and commercial usage.

This talk is all about your non-free, proprietary license, while you market it as "Open Source" it is not by definition. Reference:
https://huggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-Text-01/blob/main/LICENSE

The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/osd

What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Microsoft releases models under MIT license, IBM Granite I think Apache 2.0, and Alibaba Group, and Allen AI from Paul Allen (Microsoft related) makes everything very fully free software.

Now, I understand your thinking, but I wish to widen your thinking. You are trying to say "please people who intend to be criminals or bad people, I am warning you, not to be so, as if you are bad criminals or bad people, I will take my license away from you, and disallow you using this model".

But in reality you, neither IBM, Microsoft, Alibaba Group or Paul Allen Institute of AI Research, do not have time, neither effort, neither legal nor cash capability to pursue such goals of enforcement of such cases.

If we are talking about practical inclusion of non-free and proprietary software such as MiniMax LLMs, into open source, free software distributions, that will never work, so there is no entry, as free software aware developers do not include non-free software. It can't get widespread use in that type of community.

It can get maybe some distribution within dontminders community as those may use META licenses and Llama, etc. They don't care.

Surely I understand the intentions of author of that license, maybe it was you, but I am pointing out to impossibilities which you created to yourself.

By making software non-free (free as in liberty, freedom), you gain less public, less developers, as they are mixing their software with other free software, developing on top of each other, and licenses must be compatible. So getting included into various stacks and getting wider distribution is harder with proprietary licenses.

Examples of impossibilities, unenforcable

Prohibited Uses (Section 8):

• "Violate any applicable federal, state, local, or international law or regulation."
• Laws vary widely across jurisdictions, and users may unintentionally violate laws they are unaware of. The author cannot monitor or enforce compliance globally.

Examples

A user in Country A might use the MiniMax model to generate a satirical political cartoon, which is legal in their jurisdiction. However, in Country B, where satire of political figures is prohibited under strict defamation laws, the same content could be considered illegal. The user, unaware of Country B's laws, unintentionally violates them simply by sharing the cartoon online. The author of the model has no way to monitor or enforce compliance with every law in every jurisdiction, making this rule impossible to enforce and placing an unreasonable burden on the user to navigate the complexities of global legal systems.

A developer in Country X uses the MiniMax model to create an AI-powered app that generates personalized financial advice. The app becomes popular and is used by people in Country Y, where providing financial advice without a specific license is illegal. Even though the developer followed all laws in Country X, the app’s use in Country Y violates local regulations. According to the rule, the model "may not be used in any way that violates any applicable federal, state, local, or international law or regulation." However, the developer had no way of knowing about or complying with Country Y’s laws, and the author of the model cannot monitor or enforce global legal compliance. This makes the rule impractical and unenforceable, highlighting its incompatibility with the principles of free software.

"Generate or disseminate false or misleading information with the intent to harm others."

• Intent is subjective and difficult to prove. The author cannot determine whether a user intended to harm others.

Example 1: Unintentional Spread of Misleading Information

A journalist uses the MiniMax model to quickly generate a summary of a breaking news event about a natural disaster. The model produces a statement claiming, "The earthquake caused 50,000 deaths," based on outdated or incorrect data. The journalist, under tight deadlines, publishes the summary without verifying the numbers. The false information spreads widely, causing panic and reputational harm to the affected region. While the journalist did not intend to harm others, the rule states that the model "may not be used to generate or disseminate false or misleading information with the intent to harm others." Proving intent is impossible here, as the harm was unintentional, yet the rule is technically violated.

Example 2: Satire Misinterpreted as Harmful Misinformation

A comedian uses the MiniMax model to generate a satirical article mocking a public figure’s controversial statement. The article includes exaggerated claims and absurd scenarios, clearly intended as humor. However, some readers take the satire at face value and share it as factual information, leading to public confusion and harm to the public figure’s reputation. While the comedian’s intent was to entertain, not harm, the rule could still be seen as violated because false information was disseminated, and harm resulted. The author of the model cannot determine the comedian’s intent or control how the content is interpreted, making the rule unenforceable.

Why These Examples Highlight the Problem

• Intent is Subjective: In both cases, the harm caused was unintentional, but the rule focuses on intent, which is impossible to prove or enforce.
• Context Matters: What one person sees as satire or an honest mistake, another might interpret as harmful misinformation.
• Author’s Limitations: The author of the model cannot monitor or control how users interpret or use the generated content, making the rule impractical.

These examples show how easily this rule can be broken, even by well-meaning users, and why it’s incompatible with the principles of free software.

More examples

Generate or disseminate content prohibited by applicable laws or regulations."

• Laws differ by region, and the author cannot track or enforce compliance with every law worldwide.

"Generate or disseminate personally identifiable information without proper authorization or for unreasonable or unlawful purposes."

• The author cannot monitor how users handle personal data or determine whether their use is "unreasonable" or "unlawful."

"Defame, disparage, harass, or cause harm to any individual or entity."

• These terms are vague and subjective. The author cannot adjudicate disputes over defamation or harassment.

"Promote discrimination, hate speech, or harmful behavior towards individuals or groups based on [protected characteristics]."

• Determining what constitutes "hate speech" or "harmful behavior" is subjective and context-dependent. The author cannot monitor or enforce this globally.

Restrictions on Model Outputs (Section 2.b.iv):

"You will not use the MiniMax Model Materials or any output or results of the MiniMax Model Materials to improve any other large language model."

• This is nearly impossible to enforce. Once the model is distributed, the author cannot control how its outputs are used, including whether they are used to improve other models.

Commercial Use Restrictions (Section 3):

If your product or service has over 100 million monthly active users, you must request a separate license from MiniMax.

This creates uncertainty for large-scale users and restricts commercial freedom, making the license non-free. The author cannot easily track user counts or enforce this requirement.

We are talking about the term free as in freedom and liberty, not price. Every free software license allows licensee to use it commercially.

Now how is management of MiniMax to even find out if someone has 100 million monthly active users? Your MiniMax software runs in background, you have not get the address and contacts of the user, let's say Baidu website can use MiniMax to generate jokes which can be shared, how are you going to even know that they are using MiniMax?

And what are you going to do, if there is insider who finds out that there is violation of the license, and then they inform you? How are you going to find true evidences? You will tell that insider told me, so it must be true? Is Chinese police to be hired, engaged because of your statement against Baidu, hypothetically? You would need to have serious legal department of 10 people working there and knowing both country laws, and being present physically in that other country to even be able to lead the court proceeding to enforce such a rule.

On the other hand, free software developers continually get awarded for their software, though competition is high, especially now in subject of AI.

Attribution Requirements (Section 2.b.i and 2.b.ii):

• "Prominently display 'Built with MiniMax AI' on a related website, user interface, blog post, about page, or product documentation."

While attribution is common in open-source licenses, the requirement to "prominently display" the notice is vague and difficult to enforce.

I am not using Minimax, and I am not eager to download it, because it is non-free.

But let's say I am using it, why would I tell you? You already gave me the possibility. Let's talk reality. You gave me to do what I wish, practically yes, only by words you are prohibiting me. You will never know me. I am not going to tell you.

Let's say the AGPL software

GNU Affero General Public License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

The AGPL software is downloaded and used by many people who appreciate free software, so they will even give you their own server version if they interact with user. That is different category.

You are attracting the category of people who will anyway disobey you, basically creating animosity between you and users. They are already guilty, you see? Because you asked them something, but they don't comply, in the next step you are not to receive anything. I have just sent few dollars to other developer of LLMs.

Imagine if I am using Minimax without attribution on the website, would I send you some dollars? Probably not, because I am in breach of agreement, why would I tell you by donating dollars, that I am using it? You could come to website and figure out that Minimax is used. So no, I am not sending it.

Include "MiniMax" at the beginning of any derivative AI model name.

This imposes a branding restriction that limits user freedom and is difficult to enforce, especially for derivative works. We are not in 1990-ies, we are in 21st century.

People can freely do whatever they wish with downloadable modifiable software, so you made it already available. Now don't think that someone in Uganda, or South Africa is to care of your naming model.

Termination for Litigation (Section 6.c):

If you sue MiniMax for intellectual property infringement, your license is automatically terminated.

This creates a chilling effect on users' ability to enforce their own rights and is difficult to justify in a free software license.

No matter what you write in the license, you can be sued. And why would you even try to restrict someone not to sue you? Even that clause is not enforceable in courts. You can be sued even in other countries. They will not care what page you had somewhere online. Totally vague and not enforceable clause.

The MiniMax Model License Agreement includes numerous terms that are vague, subjective, and unenforceable, particularly those related to prohibited uses, attribution, and commercial restrictions. These terms undermine the principles of free software by imposing impractical conditions and limiting user freedom. As a result, the license cannot be considered truly "free" in the sense of promoting open and unrestricted use, modification, and distribution.

Remember, I am not complaining you have proprietary license.

I am complaining that it is deceptive advertising to say it is "open source" or free software, while it is not. You will only get articles as negative as this one:

Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative:
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source

Consider well what I am saying. If you wish it to be free software and open source, then choose right license.

Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

You have built it with free software, not so?

Many companies have different ways of making money, though you can make money selling MiniMax, selling services, membership, etc.

But if you already published it, now you are entering into legal area for which you may not even have resources to handle the enforcement.

We are very much hoping that our model can be utilized by developers in the open source community. In reality, the main constraints in our license are related to illegal activities and commercial usage.

Those who take care of free software or open source, do not use proprietary licenses. Your license is proprietary. Thus only dontminders will use it, and those criminals, which you are trying to prevent, because you can't really prevent them.