5 ms·

This is the text of the license from this repo [1]. Seems pretty open to me? About this license The Responsible AI License allows users to take advantage of t

This is the text of the license from this repo [1]. Seems pretty open to me? About this license The Responsible AI License allows users to take advantage of the model in a wide range of settings (including free use and redistribution) as long as they respect the specific use case restrictions outlined, which correspond to model applications the licensor deems ill-suited for the model or are likely to cause harm. [1] https://huggingface.co/CompVis/stable-diffusion-v-1-4-original https://huggingface.co/CompVis/stable-diffusion-v-1-4-origin...

schoen 4y ago
Compare https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd This isn't a very minor point, as this was an explicit discussion and is also OSI's translation of Debian's translation of Richard Stallman's "freedom 0". That is, it's an important, and explicit, tradition/consensus in FOSS that users aren't restricted in the purposes for which they may use the software.
- localhost 4y ago
  I don't have an opinion on this one way or another, but if the RAIL license concerns you, then perhaps you can take it up with the organization behind it? https://www.licenses.ai/ https://www.licenses.ai/
  - orra 4y ago
    There's no point. RAIL are well aware their licenses are proprietary (see their FAQ), and they are happy with that.
- optimalsolver 4y ago
  Doesn't Stallman's "free" license dictate what you can and cannot do with the software?
  - orra 4y ago
    No, the GNU licences place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance. But they allow you to run the programs for any purpose, without field of endeavour restrictions, or moral police. You don't even need to accept a licence to run a GNU program.
    - optimalsolver 4y ago
      >place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance Ok, so a major restriction on what you can do with the software.
      - schoen 4y ago
        I know that people have criticized copyleft for decades as being unfree in some sense, and I suppose citing either FSF's definition or those derived from it would be circular in the sense that they were all written by people who assumed that copyleft was acceptable. But those definitions are clear that the "right to run the program for any purpose" must not be restricted by copyright licensing terms, and that copyright licensing "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". Neither of those are infringed by restrictions on further distribution. (In fact, even freeware licenses that prohibited redistribution entirely could be compatible with this specific rule.) You might say that it was surprising or hypocritical not to have a corresponding freedom related to redistribution, which would then preclude copyleft licensing. The BSD projects have tended to act as though they recognized this additional rule (that it's important to allow sublicensing and not to attach the same conditions to derived works, including allowing the possibility that end users of derived works will get fewer rights). But even in this case, nobody has suggested that it was "free" or "open" to directly limit the purposes for which end users could run a program.
    - frabcus 4y ago
      Out of interest are there any copyleft style neural network licenses - eg that require fine tuned model weights are published? (And Affero GPL style in terms of servers and distribution meaning these days)
satvikpendem 4y ago
That is not open source. That's at most source available. Consider, what will they do if they think you're using ill-suited use cases? How would they even determine something like that?

schoen 4y ago

Compare https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd This isn't a very minor point, as this was an explicit discussion and is also OSI's translation of Debian's translation of Richard Stallman's "freedom 0". That is, it's an important, and explicit, tradition/consensus in FOSS that users aren't restricted in the purposes for which they may use the software.

localhost 4y ago
I don't have an opinion on this one way or another, but if the RAIL license concerns you, then perhaps you can take it up with the organization behind it? https://www.licenses.ai/ https://www.licenses.ai/
- orra 4y ago
  There's no point. RAIL are well aware their licenses are proprietary (see their FAQ), and they are happy with that.
optimalsolver 4y ago
Doesn't Stallman's "free" license dictate what you can and cannot do with the software?
- orra 4y ago
  No, the GNU licences place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance. But they allow you to run the programs for any purpose, without field of endeavour restrictions, or moral police. You don't even need to accept a licence to run a GNU program.
  - optimalsolver 4y ago
    >place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance Ok, so a major restriction on what you can do with the software.
    - schoen 4y ago
      I know that people have criticized copyleft for decades as being unfree in some sense, and I suppose citing either FSF's definition or those derived from it would be circular in the sense that they were all written by people who assumed that copyleft was acceptable. But those definitions are clear that the "right to run the program for any purpose" must not be restricted by copyright licensing terms, and that copyright licensing "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". Neither of those are infringed by restrictions on further distribution. (In fact, even freeware licenses that prohibited redistribution entirely could be compatible with this specific rule.) You might say that it was surprising or hypocritical not to have a corresponding freedom related to redistribution, which would then preclude copyleft licensing. The BSD projects have tended to act as though they recognized this additional rule (that it's important to allow sublicensing and not to attach the same conditions to derived works, including allowing the possibility that end users of derived works will get fewer rights). But even in this case, nobody has suggested that it was "free" or "open" to directly limit the purposes for which end users could run a program.
  - frabcus 4y ago
    Out of interest are there any copyleft style neural network licenses - eg that require fine tuned model weights are published? (And Affero GPL style in terms of servers and distribution meaning these days)

satvikpendem 4y ago

That is not open source. That's at most source available. Consider, what will they do if they think you're using ill-suited use cases? How would they even determine something like that?