NOT open!
Hi folks. This is great work and I appreciate the desire to release open models of course. Unfortunately by the OSI's definitions, this is not at ALL an open project, with MANY restrictions that make it so that this is a source available release, not an open source one.
Not open source (MIT/Apache-level) because:
It restricts who can use it: companies over $10M revenue need a separate paid license. That’s discrimination based on user/org size.
It restricts what you can use it for: the Acceptable Use Policy bans whole categories (medical advice, law enforcement/justice uses, military/weapons, etc.). Open source can’t limit fields of use.
It has a no-compete restriction: you can’t use it in products/services that compete with the licensor unless you get a separate license.
It forces downstream licensing: if you distribute derivatives (fine-tunes, modified weights/code), you must distribute them only under this same license and pass along all the restrictions, so you can’t relicense under MIT/Apache.
Just wanted to say that I'm excited about the work and you've done a wonderful job but that this is actually quite harmful in a lot of ways. Keep in mind, I am not arguing your restrictions or the morality behind them, I'm just saying that calling something open when it is not makes the entire free software landscape more confusing. On top of that, I along with many others believe that these restrictions meant to negate harm can actually cause more harm because bad actors either go through worse channels or break the license in more secretive or dangerous ways.
Hope you folks will reconsider what you've done here if you insist on slapping "open" everywhere on all of your material, you should really seriously think about this decision. You may disagree that it is harmful, but know that MANY professionals will always fundamentally disagree with that position, and that at the very least, it "muddies the open source waters".
Cheers.
Interesting...
Not fully open, but the limits are for irrelevant parties. Those companies should pay millions to train their own models if it does not work for them.
As stated above:
"Keep in mind, I am not arguing your restrictions or the morality behind them, I'm just saying that calling something open when it is not makes the entire free software landscape more confusing."
Surely It is annoying for LTX to read comments like yours.
They release such great stuff and there is somebody complaining that if you cross 10m usd you need to pay.
Just relax
It restricts who can use it: companies over $10M revenue need a separate paid license. That’s discrimination based on user/org size.
You could've saved some of the millions you've wasted with Elon, Sam & Co. into the ballroom.
"open weights" means that we can download the weights without using it via API. The vast majority of us users will be under $10m. I don't think any of us have an issue with big organizations helping to fund the next iteration, do we?
It's your model, you can release it--or not--under whatever terms you like. But it's not okay to release a model with a restrictive, non-open-source license, then to proudly proclaim "LTX-2 is Fully Open Source".
https://chatgpt.com/share/696af6d2-4e1c-8008-a52e-f74f1bfd52c1
full open source: weights, code, a trainer, benchmarks, LoRAs, and documentation
they aren't trying to fool anyone, a child could quickly find out that they require licensing for over $10mil...I mean, come on.
I've been dreading coming back to this but the emails aren't stopping and it's bothering me so here I am, on a work trip at midnight, in my hotel room halfway across my country when I'm due on a train at 7am to go back home. Ah, well.
I sincerely thought this community was more scientific and positive than this, and I'm pretty heartbroken. As someone fairly permeable to words I unfortunately don't see myself making another post like this on this site for a while even though many of them have lead to major models being opened permissively. I just don't have the emotional or mental bandwidth to handle trolls slinging personal attacks at me. Being as this may be one of my last posts here, I figure I'd go down just bringing up the points I've brought up a few times on this site.
First, one I haven't: If you must know, I live well below the poverty line. I work mostly in charity and nonprofits doing youth arts work as a technical mentor. My wonderful wife is so supportive, but we don't get to go on dates or buy Christmas gifts for eachother or live frivolously. We work hard, long hours, don't get paid much, and really don't have insurance if anything happens. I chose this life, because I can't stand the way things work. I believe in collective intelligence and community. I believe in making a better future, because we aren't here long and it's all we can do. I'm not trying to brag, or say it's a choice that I think is more "correct" than other lifestyles, just it is the one I live and I've certainly never seen a ballroom. I grew up on the streets. I've been homeless.
Secondly, everyone is arguing the clauses/restrictions, and their morality, as I've said multiple times I was not arguing. Under the OSI, the open source institute, it is not open source, period. That's not me saying that as an opinion, it is just factual information. Maybe some people consider it open but it is a reality that you all have to live with that many, and I mean MANY well respected groups disagree fundamentally. I'm not talking about if it makes sense to let rich people run wild, I explicitly said I wasn't. It is the belief of MANY large institutions, scientific bodies, scientists, and individuals that the four pillars of open source are like human rights. If any are infringed, it is as good as useless to them. I strongly recommend watching Richard Stallman's TED talk, its older but it'd a wonderful primer. This isn't even me arguing for copyleft! If Linux wasn't released GPL the world would be in a MUCH worse space! When a contractor hires for real work to be made that might actually change lives, often they do not allow for non permissive licenses to be used in work which makes the work as good as not being made at all in many scenarios. It isn't about WHAT the modification or restriction is away from permissive licenses, it's that the model is not permissively open and therefore is not even considered in MANY scenarios.
Third, you all think I'm a billionaire bootlicker apparently, but I'm not actually sure many people hate them more vehemently than I. I just think that if you're so short-sighted that you only think of the fact that individuals get to play with this and not the actual professional and wider implications a restrictive license like this causes we are giving more power to those billionaires and making AI less safe, less collectively owned, and less usable for actual good that would offset the harm of releasing a model open source, as there are inevitably bad actors. Can't you see they want us to fight amongst ourselves? Can't you just take two seconds and realize that you're the ones perpetuating a world in which restrictions are placed upon the individual?
Lastly, Lightricks may not have understood the implications of their licensing. They're probably scientists, not lawyers. What REALLY makes an open source ethos and community in my opinion is the vibrant community itself, multiple differing opinions that you may not agree with, offered in volunteer time out of the goodness of peoples hearts because they believe in the project and think it could be even more. Even when we don't agree, we hold voices as a percentile of our community of users and use that to inform our decisions better moving forward. Everyone wins. You all are doing an excellent job extinguishing that.