3 ms·

I simply don't use the closed source ones? Easy to filter (can I see the source?), and helps if I want to contribute as well. Currently using https://github.co

I simply don't use the closed source ones? Easy to filter (can I see the source?), and helps if I want to contribute as well. Currently using https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion + https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion-webui https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion-webui which are both FOSS and works well.

fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
It's now enough to use the main repo only, because he's regularly copying over any changes. So don't need to manually copy those files across anymore.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Ah, I didn't know that, already have symlinks + .gitignore setup so I can update both easily with `git pull`, but good to hear it's no longer needed. Any reason why the webui repository is not archived with a warning up top if it's been deprecated like you say?
  - fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
    It's not deprecated. He uses it for development and then copies the files across to the main repo. I don't really understand what benefits this setup has over making a dev branch in the main repo, but to each their own!
rcoveson 4y ago
Whoa there, that first link looks super sketchy. It seems like they just forked the original `CompVis/stable-diffusion` and replaced the license file in this commit: https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa13d022623f13491502bbac399887e https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa1...
- knaik94 4y ago
  The have added a lot more to it than just change the license, and the replacement is to the GNU AGPL. The original wording in the license puts arbitrary and unenforceable limits on what the end user can do. I would argue the original repo license applies to the weights only and not the code wrapping it. This is completely valid. They have also made a way to use real-esrgan/gfpgan and so a license change is practicality required.
  - rcoveson 4y ago
    > The have added a lot more to it than just change the license I see that, but that doesn't mean they can ignore the original license. > The original wording in the license puts arbitrary and unenforceable limits on what the end user can do. I'm totally with you here. The original license is absurd. Still doesn't mean we can fork the repo and replace the license without (probably) breaking the law. Which, by all means, do. In practice maybe nobody will care. I'm just pointing it out because it's sketchy. > I would argue the original repo license applies to the weights only and not the code wrapping it. Most of the clauses only apply to the weights, yes. The first clause in the license applies to the whole repo, though: "All rights reserved by the authors." > They have also made a way to use real-esrgan/gfpgan and so a license change is practicality required. I don't see how this is relevant. Even if there is a license conflict, the authors retain control over their source. A license conflict might lead to a damages settlement, or an order to halt distribution. It doesn't magically switch the license by implication.
    - knaik94 4y ago
      This repo doesn't distribute the model or weights directly. You are agreeing to the more limited upstream license of the original repo when you download the pre-trained model. If the repo came bundled with the pre-trained model then your concern is valid. In this case it is not.
      - rcoveson 4y ago
        Look at the "assets" and "scripts" directories. Those contain images and code. Those things were released alongside a LICENSE file. They are now reproduced in the fork you linked, but with the LICENSE file rewritten completely. The original license (Aug. 10) did not grant permission to relicense those scripts. All it said about them was "All rights reserved". The current license, the one added on Aug. 22, does seem grant explicit permission to sublicense and redistribute what it calls the "Complementary Material" (which includes the source code surrounding the model), however, it has a lot of specific provisions, among which are the requirement that the original copyright notice be reproduced. Like I said, in practice this might not be a big deal, but forking a repo whose license starts with "All rights reserved" and which does not explicitly grant permission to relicense its code, and then rewriting the license file in your fork, should be a huge red flag. As of the Aug. 22 license the fork might be compliant, but I think it would be a lot safer to include a copy of that license in addition to the new GNU license for the forker's changes. And pre-Aug 22, when this fork was made, it was just flat out ignorant to fork and relicense. You can't just delete "All rights reserved" and paste in a GNU license. Look at the license the forker deleted[0]. Literally all it says is "All rights reseved", and then lists a few things you can't do. There's not a single provision that would make it okay to redistribute at all, let alone modify and relicense it. 0. https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa13d022623f13491502bbac399887e https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa1...

fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago

It's now enough to use the main repo only, because he's regularly copying over any changes. So don't need to manually copy those files across anymore.

capableweb 4y ago
Ah, I didn't know that, already have symlinks + .gitignore setup so I can update both easily with `git pull`, but good to hear it's no longer needed. Any reason why the webui repository is not archived with a warning up top if it's been deprecated like you say?
- fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
  It's not deprecated. He uses it for development and then copies the files across to the main repo. I don't really understand what benefits this setup has over making a dev branch in the main repo, but to each their own!

rcoveson 4y ago

Whoa there, that first link looks super sketchy. It seems like they just forked the original `CompVis/stable-diffusion` and replaced the license file in this commit: https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa13d022623f13491502bbac399887e https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa1...

knaik94 4y ago
The have added a lot more to it than just change the license, and the replacement is to the GNU AGPL. The original wording in the license puts arbitrary and unenforceable limits on what the end user can do. I would argue the original repo license applies to the weights only and not the code wrapping it. This is completely valid. They have also made a way to use real-esrgan/gfpgan and so a license change is practicality required.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  > The have added a lot more to it than just change the license I see that, but that doesn't mean they can ignore the original license. > The original wording in the license puts arbitrary and unenforceable limits on what the end user can do. I'm totally with you here. The original license is absurd. Still doesn't mean we can fork the repo and replace the license without (probably) breaking the law. Which, by all means, do. In practice maybe nobody will care. I'm just pointing it out because it's sketchy. > I would argue the original repo license applies to the weights only and not the code wrapping it. Most of the clauses only apply to the weights, yes. The first clause in the license applies to the whole repo, though: "All rights reserved by the authors." > They have also made a way to use real-esrgan/gfpgan and so a license change is practicality required. I don't see how this is relevant. Even if there is a license conflict, the authors retain control over their source. A license conflict might lead to a damages settlement, or an order to halt distribution. It doesn't magically switch the license by implication.
  - knaik94 4y ago
    This repo doesn't distribute the model or weights directly. You are agreeing to the more limited upstream license of the original repo when you download the pre-trained model. If the repo came bundled with the pre-trained model then your concern is valid. In this case it is not.
    - rcoveson 4y ago
      Look at the "assets" and "scripts" directories. Those contain images and code. Those things were released alongside a LICENSE file. They are now reproduced in the fork you linked, but with the LICENSE file rewritten completely. The original license (Aug. 10) did not grant permission to relicense those scripts. All it said about them was "All rights reserved". The current license, the one added on Aug. 22, does seem grant explicit permission to sublicense and redistribute what it calls the "Complementary Material" (which includes the source code surrounding the model), however, it has a lot of specific provisions, among which are the requirement that the original copyright notice be reproduced. Like I said, in practice this might not be a big deal, but forking a repo whose license starts with "All rights reserved" and which does not explicitly grant permission to relicense its code, and then rewriting the license file in your fork, should be a huge red flag. As of the Aug. 22 license the fork might be compliant, but I think it would be a lot safer to include a copy of that license in addition to the new GNU license for the forker's changes. And pre-Aug 22, when this fork was made, it was just flat out ignorant to fork and relicense. You can't just delete "All rights reserved" and paste in a GNU license. Look at the license the forker deleted[0]. Literally all it says is "All rights reseved", and then lists a few things you can't do. There's not a single provision that would make it okay to redistribute at all, let alone modify and relicense it. 0. https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa13d022623f13491502bbac399887e https://github.com/hlky/stable-diffusion/commit/b4c61769dfa1...