4 ms·

Neither the source code nor the weights are open source... This is actually worse than Stability AI's previous offering, in that regard.

by orra 3y ago

ilaksh 3y ago
They are technically open source. It's just that the model license prohibits commercial use and the code license prohibits bypassing the filters. So it's kind of worse than closed source in a way because it's like a tease. With no API apparently. Theoretically large companies or rich people might be able to make a licensing agreement.
- rgbrgb 3y ago
  > model license prohibits commercial use I thought that at first, but I think it only prohibits commercial use that breaks regional copyright or privacy laws.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    That's already prohibited by, you know, those very same copyright and privacy laws. Adding those same prohibitions to the license not only makes the software nonfree, but pointlessly does so.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Its not pointless, it means the model licensor has a claim against you, as well as whoever would for violating the referenced laws; it also means, and this is probably more important, that in some juridictions, the model licensor has a better defense against liability for contributory infringement if the licensee infringes. EDIT: That said, it’s unambiguously not open source.
      - yellowapple 3y ago
        > it means the model licensor has a claim against you Right, but to what end? The only reason the licensor should care one way or another is the licensor being held liable for what folks do with the software, in which case... > it also means, and this is probably more important, that in some juridictions, the model licensor has a better defense against liability for contributory infringement if the licensee infringes. Do hardware stores need to demand "thou shalt not use this tool to kill people" to their customers to avoid liability for axe murders under such jurisdictions? Or car manufacturers needing to specify "you will not use this product to run over schoolchildren at crosswalks"? Like, I'm sure such jurisdictions exist, but I somehow doubt license terms in an EULA nobody (except for us nerds) will ever read would be sufficient in such a kangaroo court. (EDIT: also, I'm pretty sure the standard warranty disclaimer in your average FOSS license already covers this, without making the software nonfree in the process)
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Do hardware stores need to demand "thou shalt not use this tool to kill people" to their customers to avoid liability for axe murders under such jurisdictions? Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement. > I'm pretty sure the standard warranty disclaimer in your average FOSS license already covers this No, warranty disclaimers don’t cover this, because (1) its not a warranty issue, and (2) disclaimers, if they have legal effect at all, effect liability the disclaiming party would otherwise have to the party accepting the disclaimer, not liability the disclaiming party would have to third parties.
        yellowapple 3y ago
        > Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement. Judging by youtube-dl, it seems like it does work that way, at least in my jurisdiction; I guess we'll see if the RIAA doubles down on trying to wipe it from the face of the Earth, but considering there hasn't been much noise, I wouldn't count on it. Also, to my adjacent point, I highly doubt the RIAA would've refrained from attempting to take down youtube-dl even if youtube-dl's license prohibited its users from circumventing DRM with it.
  - orra 3y ago
    It prohibits both commercial use, whether or not you break regional laws; and it prohibits breaking certain laws. As another user said, encoding the law into a licence is pointless but makes it non-free. There are also problematic restrictions on your ability to modify the software under clause 2(c). And nor do you have the right to sublicence, it's not clear to me what rights somebody has if you give them a copy.
    - rgbrgb 3y ago
      Where does it prohibit commercial use? I’m not seeing that in the license.
      - orra 3y ago
        The model license, 1(a) and 2(a)(i).
        rgbrgb 3y ago
        Ah I guess I read it right then I reread it wrong, my bad and thanks for the pointer! That's a shame but hopefully it's released in a more open way in the future. My interest is in building good collaborative interfaces (and games!) on top of these things.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > They are technically open source. It's just that the model license prohibits commercial use and the code license prohibits bypassing the filters. Your second sentence contradicts the first. Prohibiting commercial use and prohibiting modification are each in and of themselves mutually exclusive being being "technically open source" (let alone both at the same time).
- jrm4 3y ago
  I am a lawyer, and as flimsy and wishy-washy as the term "open-source" already is, I can't even fathom what is meant by "open source" here? Are people suggesting that "look at the code but don't touch" actually fits what some people think of as open source?
  - netdur 3y ago
    NOT a lawyer here, basially they meant, here the thing, please don't sue me if you messed up.
    - jrm4 3y ago
      That's weird, because we do have extremely standard language to take care of that. That's just "warranty disclaimers"
connerruhl 3y ago
That'll change when the full non-research release occurs... https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1651328161148174337 https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1651328161148174337
- orra 3y ago
  That tweet is vague. Besides, it says like 'like SD', so I will be pleasantly shocked if the models are open source.

Neither the source code nor the weights are open source... This is actually worse than Stability AI's previous offering, in that regard.

by orra 3y ago

Neither the source code nor the weights are open source... This is actually worse than Stability AI's previous offering, in that regard.

ilaksh 3y ago

They are technically open source. It's just that the model license prohibits commercial use and the code license prohibits bypassing the filters. So it's kind of worse than closed source in a way because it's like a tease. With no API apparently. Theoretically large companies or rich people might be able to make a licensing agreement.

rgbrgb 3y ago
> model license prohibits commercial use I thought that at first, but I think it only prohibits commercial use that breaks regional copyright or privacy laws.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  That's already prohibited by, you know, those very same copyright and privacy laws. Adding those same prohibitions to the license not only makes the software nonfree, but pointlessly does so.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Its not pointless, it means the model licensor has a claim against you, as well as whoever would for violating the referenced laws; it also means, and this is probably more important, that in some juridictions, the model licensor has a better defense against liability for contributory infringement if the licensee infringes. EDIT: That said, it’s unambiguously not open source.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      > it means the model licensor has a claim against you Right, but to what end? The only reason the licensor should care one way or another is the licensor being held liable for what folks do with the software, in which case... > it also means, and this is probably more important, that in some juridictions, the model licensor has a better defense against liability for contributory infringement if the licensee infringes. Do hardware stores need to demand "thou shalt not use this tool to kill people" to their customers to avoid liability for axe murders under such jurisdictions? Or car manufacturers needing to specify "you will not use this product to run over schoolchildren at crosswalks"? Like, I'm sure such jurisdictions exist, but I somehow doubt license terms in an EULA nobody (except for us nerds) will ever read would be sufficient in such a kangaroo court. (EDIT: also, I'm pretty sure the standard warranty disclaimer in your average FOSS license already covers this, without making the software nonfree in the process)
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Do hardware stores need to demand "thou shalt not use this tool to kill people" to their customers to avoid liability for axe murders under such jurisdictions? Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement. > I'm pretty sure the standard warranty disclaimer in your average FOSS license already covers this No, warranty disclaimers don’t cover this, because (1) its not a warranty issue, and (2) disclaimers, if they have legal effect at all, effect liability the disclaiming party would otherwise have to the party accepting the disclaimer, not liability the disclaiming party would have to third parties.
        yellowapple 3y ago
        > Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement. Judging by youtube-dl, it seems like it does work that way, at least in my jurisdiction; I guess we'll see if the RIAA doubles down on trying to wipe it from the face of the Earth, but considering there hasn't been much noise, I wouldn't count on it. Also, to my adjacent point, I highly doubt the RIAA would've refrained from attempting to take down youtube-dl even if youtube-dl's license prohibited its users from circumventing DRM with it.
- orra 3y ago
  It prohibits both commercial use, whether or not you break regional laws; and it prohibits breaking certain laws. As another user said, encoding the law into a licence is pointless but makes it non-free. There are also problematic restrictions on your ability to modify the software under clause 2(c). And nor do you have the right to sublicence, it's not clear to me what rights somebody has if you give them a copy.
  - rgbrgb 3y ago
    Where does it prohibit commercial use? I’m not seeing that in the license.
    - orra 3y ago
      The model license, 1(a) and 2(a)(i).
      - rgbrgb 3y ago
        Ah I guess I read it right then I reread it wrong, my bad and thanks for the pointer! That's a shame but hopefully it's released in a more open way in the future. My interest is in building good collaborative interfaces (and games!) on top of these things.
yellowapple 3y ago
> They are technically open source. It's just that the model license prohibits commercial use and the code license prohibits bypassing the filters. Your second sentence contradicts the first. Prohibiting commercial use and prohibiting modification are each in and of themselves mutually exclusive being being "technically open source" (let alone both at the same time).
jrm4 3y ago
I am a lawyer, and as flimsy and wishy-washy as the term "open-source" already is, I can't even fathom what is meant by "open source" here? Are people suggesting that "look at the code but don't touch" actually fits what some people think of as open source?
- netdur 3y ago
  NOT a lawyer here, basially they meant, here the thing, please don't sue me if you messed up.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    That's weird, because we do have extremely standard language to take care of that. That's just "warranty disclaimers"

connerruhl 3y ago

That'll change when the full non-research release occurs... https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1651328161148174337 https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1651328161148174337

orra 3y ago
That tweet is vague. Besides, it says like 'like SD', so I will be pleasantly shocked if the models are open source.