[ensignavenger]

The OSD does not allow for discrimination:

"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

By having a clause that discriminates based on revenue, it cannot be Open Source.

If they had required everyone to provide attribution in the same manner, then we would have to examine the specifics of the attribution requirement to determine if it is compatible... but since they discriminate, it violates the open source definition, and no further analysis is necessary.

[sophiebits]

This license with the custom clause seems equivalent to dual-licensing the product under the following licenses combined:

* Small companies may use it without attribution

* Anyone may use it with attribution

The first may not be OSI compatible, but if the second license is then it’s fair to call the offering open weights, in the same way that dual-licensing software under GPL and a commercial license is a type of open source.

Presumably the restriction on discrimination relates to license terms which grant _no_ valid open source license to some group of people.

[kragen]

Well said.