Incorrect statement on website related to Stability AI Community License alleging to stick to "Open Source" principles
Following statement on the website: https://stability.ai/news/license-update is wrong and deceptive:
Our new Community License is now free for research, non-commercial, and commercial use. You only need a paid Enterprise license if your yearly revenues exceed USD$1M and you use Stability AI models in commercial products or services.
We are recommitting to our customers and our core open source principles:
Artist friendly and pro creator freedom
Research aligned
Transparent and clear license terms
Community focused and values driven open-source philosophy
Committed to regular communication and engagement with our users
While those may be positively aligned with some users' perceptions, or resonate, those are not Open Source or Free Software core principles.
In fact, Stability Ai blatantly breaks the free software and open source principles by limiting commercial use for companies over one million dollar in revenue.
You could always make it dual-licensed, as many serious companies making money with it, need the commercial license and support, and you can give them whatever specialized models, or more features, under such license, while having the basic model under free software license.
Please see references here on what is free software:
What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative
https://opensource.org/osd
Word "Open" as in "Open Source" - Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open
Your license is clearly not "Open Source" and you are using definition wrongly. In the community of free software this will rather reflect badly, with bad negative marketing, just as for LLAMA where Meta pretended to push it into the "Open Source" community by using wrong terminology.
Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source – Open Source Initiative:
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source
Such articles are rather detrimental for development.
Please research business models of dual licensing, and trust me that those companies with good income will be interested to contribute to you, to purchase different commercial licenses.
I do not mind if you do not change your opinion and keep using proprietary license. But I do mind if you keep using the word "open source" on your page as that reflects bad integrity and gives bad impression. It tells me that you are trying to deceive, and while that may not be your intention, that is the impression.
Look into the definition of "Open Source" and contact the organization to see if they agree with this comment.
Then reconsider if it is ethical to publish how you are promoting or fostering "Open Source" core principles, while core principles were not even mentioned and while the license is not Open Source and thus not free software.