Lightning-fast completions, deep code understanding, and agentic software engineering—right where you work.
Code with intelligence, control with confidence.
Transform your development workflows with an AI coding assistant that deeply understands your codebase. Mistral Code delivers intelligent code completion, generation, and autonomous task execution right where you work.
Transform your development workflows with an AI coding assistant that deeply understands your codebase. Mistral Code delivers intelligent code completion, generation, and autonomous task execution right where you work.
Read the original article
Comments
> Mistral Code Enterprise is a fork of Continue. All due credit to the original creators of Continue.
Source: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=mistrala...
Link destination: https://www.continue.dev/
This is why I don't like open sourcing my projects anymore. Someone else with more resources just forks it and makes profits, thinking that merely acknowledging me pays my bills.
For years, ollama didn't acknowledge llama.cpp and r/localllama found it weird until they finally mentioned llama.cpp on their page, but the damage is done: most apps that support local LLMs only support ollama or LM Studio API, not the original llama.cpp.
Choose your license well. If you are using a permissive licence (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc...) you are begging for it. If that's what you want (and it may be what you want), go for it, but don't expect it to pay the bills.
If you are using a copyleft license, especially AGPL, you may not get paid either, but you may get valuable contributions in return. It is also a good way to avoid having big companies profit from your work, if that's what you want.
If you want to make money but still want to open source, use a non-free "source available" licence (ex: "non-commercial"). They tend to be unpopular in the open source community and it is probably not the best way to get known.
And then you can have dual-licences, like GPL + commercial. Qt is probably the most popular software using that scheme.
But I don't really understand the people who publish software under a permissive licences and get forked by some tech giant and complain. That's what permissive licenses are for!
By abnercoimbre 2025-06-0421:312 reply From the POV of an indie dev selling closed-source binaries, would a source-available license gain any goodwill in this space? And how would you tackle pricing?
By GuB-42 2025-06-0422:34 I don't really have a say since I don't buy nor sell software. As a technical guy, I may have an influence, but usually, finance decides and not always the way I'd like.
That being said, I highly value having access to the source code, even under a restrictive license. The source code is the best documentation, it doesn't lie. Also being able to make small changes, recompile with different libraries, etc... but for me, the "documentation" aspect is the most important. I don't do security, but I guess being able to audit the code is a good thing too.
For me, open source goes beyond the "freedom" aspect. Also, AFAIK, most commercial game engines are "source available" too.
By caleblloyd 2025-06-052:35 I would prefer the BSL with some sort of trial period grant and source available to closed source.
Other nice thing about BSL is it converts to an Open Source license after 3-4 years which addresses the concern “what if the software vendor goes out of business”. You can support it yourself or another vendor can pick it up and support it after that time period.
By overfeed 2025-06-0421:48 > But I don't really understand the people who publish software under a permissive licences and get forked by some tech giant and complain
They want to have their cake and eat it.
Licenses only work if it's copyrightable and weights, almost certainly, aren't.
The code would be, but I'm not sure that's much of a barrier.
By pabs3 2025-06-089:41 Even the copyleft licenses need lengthy costly lawsuits to enforce them, so they aren't that useful for many developers who can't afford to pay lawyers for ages.
By freedomben 2025-06-0420:581 reply > This is why I don't like open sourcing my projects anymore. Someone else with more resources just forks it and makes profits, thinking that merely acknowledging me pays my bills.
Then I would submit that you are picking the wrong license. The whole point of the GPL/AGPL family of licenses is to ensure that they can't just do this. They will be required to publish their changes, which benefits the original project (you). It's not a perfect solution, but it helps a great deal. The answer to this problem is not to close up and/or go proprietary.
By pabs3 2025-06-089:38 The GPL family of licenses doesn't say anything about profits, competition, giving back or publishing changes at all, just that downstream users (not the original project) have to get access to the source code. Those users probably won't bother to do that though.
then don't. the point of open source is not to earn money or profit. it's to have the software open so people can inspect it, be inspired by it, trust it, modify it without contacting you and possibly copy it. imagine sharing your idea with the world but not wanting anyone to implement or capitalize on it. it's an impossible ask.
i'm a bald head grey beard, at least in the 90's when we shared software it was for the reasons we outlined, there was no github stars, there was no trying to line a job. it was a true gift and pay it forward sort of thing to the world. it's been almost lost due to money, if you need to earn a living, start a business, get a job and make your open source project a hobby. don't mix them together.
By behnamoh 2025-06-0420:55 > at least in the 90's when we shared software it was for the reasons we outlined...
With all due respect, that's not how most open source software is today [1]. A lot of CS students on the job market need Github stars or green tiles in case the employers check their page. So many open source projects are done only to boost resumes, not for the reasons you mentioned. Not to mention a lot of projects start as open source to lure users, only to become closed at some point (the notorious langchain is one example).
[1]: with the exception of some huge projects like ffmpeg, llama.cpp, etc.
The MPL 2.0 is a great compromise. it's basically as permissive as the MIT, but the source code must be made available.
https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2-0...
By pabs3 2025-06-089:39 IIRC, only modifications to the existing code, not all of the source code, for example if you added a proprietary dependency, or a new source code file, that doesn't need publishing.
By matthewmacleod 2025-06-0421:54 This is completely within your control:
- If your primary goal is to release open software that stays open, then release under a copyleft license (GPL)
- If your primary goal is to release software for no-strings-attached use (including incorporation into commercial services) then use a permissive license (MIT, BSD, etc.)
Interesting. So if you just configure continue with Mistral Medium 3 as the chat model and codestral as the autocomplete, you probably have exactly this. This is the setup I already use.
If that were the case, then the posted URL would be pure hype. I think it's more likely that they've developed something that is more bespoke than that. It's totally too hard to say though.
By tensor 2025-06-0419:28 Knowing the enterprise space, my guess is that the only real changes are hardcoding continue to use only Mistral, and tying it into some sort of central enterprise licensing service. Holding back some novel models just for enterprise use seems unlikely, as does developing some novel agentic capabilities within Continue.
Enterprise deals are usually around compliance and security primarily. Companies want centralized billing and to be sure that their developers only use "sanctioned" AI and other tech.
Who knows though with that contact us sales wall.
By killerstorm 2025-06-0420:471 reply The page suggests it's possible to fine-tune models on your code base
By tensor 2025-06-0420:52 That's very possible. You can already do that via the platform api easily (just feeding it your github project), so a light UI around that api would be very easy.
Originally as an experiment in using non-US services, as my company is not a US company and the possibility of tariffs on digital services is not at all unrealistic. The exercise was really enlightening. Not to derail the conversation the TLDR was that in some areas it was easy to move off US services, while in others (github) there are almost no alternatives.
I do have access to US models via Kagi to play around with and use for things Mistral doesn't work on. I've been meaning to try command a too, but haven't gotten around to it. I will say that the new mistral medium model is surprisingly good, though I've only just started using it. Codestral is definitely behind other models.
By ttoinou 2025-06-050:55 What feature of github is lacking in competetitors ?
I wouldnt use an AI LLM that has 50% of chance of me needing to reprompt or try another model, I prefer using direclty the best model directly. But yeah US vs. Europe is a real concern
By helloplanets 2025-06-0420:35 Well that tidbit of information was definitely sweeped under the rug.
Strikes me as a weird combo to have a fork of a VS Code/JetBrains extension be a completely walled off enterprise only deal. Any other apps out there having success with this sort of model?
Same as others have said, with consumers wanting to try 20 different models all the time, you have to reduce the friction of trying out the model.
I hope this is just a huge mistake that they aren't allowing anyone to actually try it.
Word of mouth from HN and others (not just advertising a link or press release) is how I've started to use about pretty much every single AI feature I use.
Assuming this isn't a mistake, it says that this company has the wrong management/leadership structure if they think they can sell a brand new developer focused coding tool without letting actual developers try it. Maybe we don't know something?
By whiplash451 2025-06-0419:44 Poolside does the same thing, though
By rahimnathwani 2025-06-0418:252 reply Pricing is 'contact us'.
Since this is a fork of continue.dev I wonder about the legal implications of monetizing the project.
By wut42 2025-06-0421:13 Isn't Continue released under Apache 2?
There are no conflicts with monetizing open source projects as long as the source is available.
By fzzzy 2025-06-1313:03 Can you explain which licenses prevent monetizing open source? It's fine under the gpl and agpl as long as the source is available, and also fine under mit, bsd, and apache without even requiring that source is available.
By moralestapia 2025-06-0418:281 reply Dead on Arrival
