News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Muse Spark Open by popinman322 on Thursday October 15, 2026 @01:43PM (#50107323)
The model license requires large inference providers to contact Meta separately to obtain a license to serve the model. I know we've seen this before with other large models, but it's still a bit irritating.

The usual effect of separate licensing is decreased price competition from public providers (like we saw with Kimi K3). I guess it's better for the providers if the price is fixed: any efficiency improvements directly improve margin rather than driving prices down over time. Still, to provide my own anecdata, the main thing keeping me on a paid subscription is token costs for the more capable models.

Re:Muse Spark Open by isityettime on Thursday October 15, 2026 @01:55PM (#50107499)
Then it's not open-weight. Open-weight means "weights available under an open-source license", and licenses prohibiting commercial use are not open-source.

The nearest analogue would be "weights available", I guess.

Re:Muse Spark Open by tcdent on Thursday October 15, 2026 @02:09PM (#50107734)
Meta did this from the very beginning with the original Llama's. Open weights, but you have to use an account with them and agree to an EULA.
Re:Muse Spark Open by dannyw on Thursday October 15, 2026 @02:23PM (#50107976)
There's obvs decreased price competition, but it also does help with ensuring model quality.

Quite a lot of providers on OpenRouter run degraded or broken models. I think some is deliberate, but I think a lot is just providers not setting up models properly; especially with the rush to day zero models.

Re:Muse Spark Open by AtHeartEngineer on Thursday October 15, 2026 @02:00PM (#50107583)
ya especially because it's huge, you aren't running this on your desktop