3 ms·

> > Plus Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui has no formally published license, making its codebase a tangled web of legal nightmares. > It sounds like you’re

by saurik 4y ago

> > Plus Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui has no formally published license, making its codebase a tangled web of legal nightmares. > It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. That is actually not an option as there is no license on the first-party code in this repository (the only licenses I've seen being of a few third-party dependencies listed in html/licenses.html), so it isn't even clear to me you can legally clone it ;P... forking it would seem extremely problematic.

monkmartinez 4y ago
Who is going to come after you for cloning or forking? What are the real dangers here? Edit: As far as I can tell, the repo maintainers are far too busy writing code and creating to care what anyone does with the code. It will change 10 times in the next 8 hours.
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
Not true. It is an option by virtue of the fact that is a public repository. (If you fail to specify a license on a public repository, the terms that apply are not the default "all rights reserved [by the owner/creator]" that prohibits anyone else from using/displaying/performing or making their own copies. Instead, the terms that apply are the default terms that are specified in the GitHub TOS that you agree to--terms that, in fact, do allow forking.)
- peterdn 4y ago
  I don't think it's that simple. GitHub themselves say [1]: > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. Yes, it does note immediately below that "if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository". But that doesn't mean it's open source. You probably can't/shouldn't create derivative works with your forks. And you definitely wouldn't be allowed to just use this code in a commercial product, for example. [1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...
  - pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
    > GitHub themselves say [1] Irrelevant. You're quoting docs.github.com, which is neither authoritative (docs are written to GitHub's documentation standards, not by their legal team), nor is it always up-to-date or well informed for the non-legal matters where it ventures to comment about the state of GitHub's products/services. > that doesn't mean it's open source Strawman. The question is "can you fork/copy?", not "is it open source?". The answer to the former is "absolutely yes, unequivocally". Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.
vageli 4y ago
> Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- fpgaminer 4y ago
  I read that as saying that all public GitHub repos can be copied and republished on GitHub, but that doesn't include the right to _modify_ the code. The latter could only be granted by a license. Of which, there is none on Auto's work. And there's none known for any of the work of other contributors. So while you can "fork" it, it's not forking it in the FOSS sense.

by saurik 4y ago

monkmartinez 4y ago

Who is going to come after you for cloning or forking? What are the real dangers here? Edit: As far as I can tell, the repo maintainers are far too busy writing code and creating to care what anyone does with the code. It will change 10 times in the next 8 hours.

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago

Not true. It is an option by virtue of the fact that is a public repository. (If you fail to specify a license on a public repository, the terms that apply are not the default "all rights reserved [by the owner/creator]" that prohibits anyone else from using/displaying/performing or making their own copies. Instead, the terms that apply are the default terms that are specified in the GitHub TOS that you agree to--terms that, in fact, do allow forking.)

peterdn 4y ago
I don't think it's that simple. GitHub themselves say [1]: > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. Yes, it does note immediately below that "if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository". But that doesn't mean it's open source. You probably can't/shouldn't create derivative works with your forks. And you definitely wouldn't be allowed to just use this code in a commercial product, for example. [1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  > GitHub themselves say [1] Irrelevant. You're quoting docs.github.com, which is neither authoritative (docs are written to GitHub's documentation standards, not by their legal team), nor is it always up-to-date or well informed for the non-legal matters where it ventures to comment about the state of GitHub's products/services. > that doesn't mean it's open source Strawman. The question is "can you fork/copy?", not "is it open source?". The answer to the former is "absolutely yes, unequivocally". Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

vageli 4y ago

> Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

fpgaminer 4y ago
I read that as saying that all public GitHub repos can be copied and republished on GitHub, but that doesn't include the right to _modify_ the code. The latter could only be granted by a license. Of which, there is none on Auto's work. And there's none known for any of the work of other contributors. So while you can "fork" it, it's not forking it in the FOSS sense.