Does the Tencent HY Community License Agreement Fully Comply with the 4 Software Freedoms as Defined by the GNU Project?
Introduction
Let’s get one thing straight from the start: I’m looking at this license with a mix of disbelief and frustration. Tencent puts out a model called “HY-MT1.5” – a translation model that its own technical report claims outperforms much larger open-source models like Tower-Plus-72B and even commercial APIs. Then they allow a third party (AngelSlim) to publish a 1.25-bit quantized version on Hugging Face, which is genuinely impressive: 440MB for a 1.8B parameter model that runs on ordinary phones offline. The AngelSlim page proudly says “Dedicated to building a more intuitive, comprehensive, and efficient LLMs compression toolkit” – and the community downloads it.
But then you read the actual Tencent HY Community License Agreement. And you realize: this is not open source in the way Richard Stallman and the GNU project have defined it for nearly four decades.
For those unfamiliar, the GNU project and Richard Stallman’s four essential software freedoms (Freedom 0–3) are the gold standard for what it means for software to be truly “free” (as in freedom, not price). To quote the GNU Philosophy page:
- Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to source code is a precondition.
- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others, giving the community a chance to benefit from your changes.
Now let’s hold Tencent’s license against that standard – and let me tell you, I have grudges.
My personal, informal evaluation (with grudges)
First, the territorial restriction – a massive red flag.
Section 1(l) defines the “Territory” as worldwide excluding the European Union, United Kingdom and South Korea. Section 5© explicitly says: “You must not use, reproduce, modify, distribute, or display the Tencent HY Works, Output or results of the Tencent HY Works outside the Territory. Any such use outside the Territory is unlicensed and unauthorized.”
Are you kidding me?
This is a geographic lock on a supposed “open” model. If I live in London or Seoul or Berlin, I am legally forbidden to even use the model. That’s a direct violation of Freedom 0 (the freedom to run for any purpose anywhere). Stallman would have a field day with this: “Free software must be available to everyone regardless of where they live.” This license turns the model into a tool that carves up the world by jurisdiction. It’s not free software; it’s licensed software with borders.
Second, the “no improvement of other AI models” clause – a poison pill for Freedom 3.
Section 5(b): “You must not use the Tencent HY Works or any Output or results of the Tencent HY Works to improve any other AI model (other than Tencent HY or Model Derivatives thereof).”
Let that sink in. You can’t take what you learn from this model to improve any other model – even if you write your own code from scratch, inspired by the architecture. This is a use restriction that goes far beyond copyright. It’s an attempt to lock you into their ecosystem.
Freedom 3 says you can distribute your modified versions to others for any purpose. But here, if you modify Tencent HY to create a better translation model and try to use it outside of the “Tencent HY or Model Derivatives” umbrella – you’re in breach. This effectively bans you from contributing improvements to the broader open-source AI ecosystem. That is not free. That is open-washing.
Third, the “over 100 million monthly active users” commercial clause – a trap for any successful project.
Section 4: “If, on the Tencent HY version release date, the monthly active users of all products or services made available by or for Licensee is greater than 100 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, You must request a license from Tencent, which Tencent may grant to You in its sole discretion, and You are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Tencent otherwise expressly grants You such rights.”
This is a hidden proprietary switch. You can use it freely until you become successful – then Tencent can say “no” for any reason, or demand money, or impose completely different terms. This violates Freedom 0 (what if your purpose becomes commercially successful? They can revoke your right to run it) and Freedom 2 (you can’t reliably redistribute copies to help your neighbor if you don’t know whether Tencent will pull the rug later).
The GNU GPL has no such clause. Once you have the rights, they are irrevocable as long as you follow the license terms. Here, success is punished.
Fourth, the termination clause for filing a patent lawsuit.
Section 6©: “If You commence a lawsuit or other proceedings … against Us or any person or entity alleging that the Materials or any Output … infringe any intellectual property or other right owned or licensable by You, then all licenses granted to You under this Agreement shall terminate as of the date such lawsuit or other proceeding is filed.”
So if you hold a patent and you think Tencent’s model infringes it – you cannot assert your rights without losing your license. That’s a mutual assured destruction clause. The GNU GPL does the opposite: it protects the user’s right to sue for patent infringement without losing the license. This clause is anti-user and anti-competitive.
Fifth, the Acceptable Use Policy (Exhibit A) includes military prohibition (item 19) and “high-stakes automated decisions” (item 14).
While I actually agree with banning military use and harmful AI, these are use restrictions. The GNU project’s four freedoms explicitly allow any use, even military, because the point is that freedom cannot be conditional on the user’s purpose. Richard Stallman has argued that “don’t use for evil” clauses are not truly free because someone else gets to decide what “evil” means. Here, Tencent decides. Item 17 bans “discriminat[ion] based on … predicted personal or personality characteristics” – that’s a moving target. Again, violates Freedom 0.
Sixth, the distribution notice requirements (Section 3) are annoying but not fatal.
Requiring a “Notice” text file and marking “Powered by Tencent HY” is fine. Requiring you to “publish at least one technology introduction blogpost” – that’s just silly and unenforceable in practice, but it’s not a freedom violation per se. The real killers are the territorial restriction, the “no improving other models” clause, and the 100-million-user trap.
Does this license comply with the 4 software freedoms?
No. Absolutely not.
| Freedom | Compliant? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom 0 (run for any purpose) | NO | Territorial restriction (can’t run in EU/UK/SK); commercial restriction (>100M users requires permission); Acceptable Use Policy bans many purposes |
| Freedom 1 (study and change) | PARTIAL | You can study the weights and code (they are provided), but the “no improving other models” clause effectively forbids you from applying any knowledge gained to non-Tencent models – which is a restriction on what you can do with your modified version |
| Freedom 2 (redistribute copies) | NO | You can only redistribute within the Territory; you cannot give a copy to someone in London. Also, the commercial threshold means you can’t freely redistribute if you’re large |
| Freedom 3 (distribute modifications) | NO | You can distribute Model Derivatives, but those derivatives cannot then be used to improve other models (Freedom 3 includes the right to use your modifications for any purpose; here, purpose is restricted) |
My grudge – and what this really is
Tencent and others like them have learned to play the PR game. They release a model, often with impressive technical specs (and I acknowledge the HY-MT1.5 technical report shows real work), and they call it “open source.” The AngelSlim page on Hugging Face doesn’t even link to this license – it just says “The code for this project is open-sourced under the License for AngelSlim” which is a different license entirely. So the quantized version may be more permissive, but the base model is under this restrictive Tencent license.
This is what I call “open washing for AI” – slapping an open-source label on a model that is geographically constrained, commercially gated, and functionally locked from improving any competitive offering. It’s the opposite of what the GNU project fought for.
Richard Stallman warned about this decades ago: “If it’s not free for everyone, it’s not free.”
This license is not free for someone in South Korea. It’s not free for a startup that dreams of reaching 100 million users. It’s not free for a researcher who wants to distill its knowledge into a different model architecture.
So no, it does not comply with the four software freedoms. It complies with a corporate strategy of controlled sharing – look but don’t touch, use but don’t succeed too much, improve but only within our walled garden.
I’m glad AngelSlim made a tiny 440MB quantized version – that’s genuinely cool engineering. But the underlying license of the model they quantized? It’s proprietary software dressed in open-source clothing.
Final verdict from me:
👎 Fails the GNU four freedoms test.
👎 Misleading to call it “open source” without those freedoms.
👎 Not welcome in the free software movement.
If you want true freedom, look for models under the Apache 2.0, MIT, or (for copyleft) GPL-compatible licenses. This Tencent license is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.