Hacker News Reader

Comment by seizethecheese | Hacker News Reader

And it’s annual revenue for serving their model as a model. Not for any product.

Where does it say that? The quoted rule talks about revenue of the licensee, without specifying that it needs to be about the model.

> This Section 3 does not apply to (a) internal use, research, or any commercial activity that is not Model as a Service, or (b) ...

To me this means that this rule only applies if you offer the model as a service, and not if you fall under those exceptions, but as soon as your business offers it, all your revenue counts.

if model serving is not your business, why would you start?

Model serving could be part of the business. If AWS offers Muse Spark as a service but the revenue is only 100k, they would still fall under this rule in my interpretation because obviously they have a much higher revenue in total.

you've altered the example context now

What do you mean? What example was there before?

a company that was not in the business of selling tokens to one adding a new model to their lineup

What difference does it make? In my understanding, as soon as you sell Muse Spark as a service, your whole revenue counts, no matter where you get it from.

The difference is back to my original question, why would a company not selling tokens start

for those already selling tokens, they are already under agreements like this, Meta is not the first to do this, it's just part of the business already

> why would a company not selling tokens start

Because they want to expand their business and make money?

This is what the entire, not that long, paragraph is about.

I don’t think the phrasing is perfectly clear that only the revenue specifically generated by offering the model as a service is counted.

Actually you’re right and I was wrong. I think it’s the whole entity’s revenue which is much more restrictive and a very low number.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com