LFM Open License v1.0 isn't free license
Tthank you for the great work; however, the current LFM Open License v1.0 includes a revenue‑threshold clause that restricts commercial use for entities earning ≥ $10 M, which violates Freedom 0 (the freedom to run the program for any purpose) and OSI’s “no discrimination against fields of endeavour” rule, meaning the software is not free or open source—could you consider re‑licensing it under a recognized free‑software license such as MIT, BSD‑3‑Clause, Apache 2.0, or GPL‑3.0 (you can still monetize support or services via a separate commercial agreement)?
Thanks for the feedback. The $10M revenue threshold is an intentional design choice to keep the models freely accessible for most users while sustaining continued development through enterprise licensing.
Yeah, here we go again. Another outfit watering down the word "Open" until it means absolutely nothing. They slap "LFM Open License" on it like it's some noble contribution to the community, but it's got a built-in cash register that locks once you hit $10M. It's not open source; it's a freemium trial with extra steps—a demo version for everyone except the companies who could actually pay for the development they're supposedly trying to "sustain."
The whole "We need to fund development" line? Classic. They want all the goodwill, the hype, and the free labor from the open-source community—the testing, the PRs, the evangelism—but they don't want to actually play by the community's rules. They're happy to take from the ecosystem of collaboration, but they'll only give on their own restrictive, self-serving terms. It's not a license; it's a marketing tactic wrapped in open-washing. They want to look like heroes of open source while keeping the real keys in their pocket. Just call it what it is: a proprietary license with a very generous free tier. Don't insult everyone's intelligence by calling it "Open."