3 ms·

The source code license is AGPL-3.0 license. Perfect for these kinds of models: https://github.com/PixArt-alpha/PixArt-alpha https://github.com/PixArt-alpha/Pix

by krasin 3y ago

The source code license is AGPL-3.0 license. Perfect for these kinds of models: https://github.com/PixArt-alpha/PixArt-alpha https://github.com/PixArt-alpha/PixArt-alpha

ilaksh 3y ago
hm. so actually it's not compatible with commercial projects then.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  The output of the model is not under the same license. In fact, as far as I understand, the output would be your own copyright to license or not license however you please. AGPL really is a great license for this type of project. It maximizes the power of everyone without limiting fair commercial use.
- krasin 3y ago
  > hm. so actually it's not compatible with commercial projects then. Perfectly compatible: just keep all modifications to the original code in public. AGPL does not mean that all code from your company must be open-source, just whatever is in the same binary/program as the AGPL one.
  - ilaksh 3y ago
    Maybe I need to read the AGPL again. I remember interpreting it as saying that if your service was dependant on the component then the license applies to the code for the rest of the service.
    - krasin 3y ago
      Please, do read it. Please, post it here if you find something that backs your recollection.
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    There is a lot of corporate knee-jerk for the AGPL ; there are many different interpretations for it and when you ask different people what you can exactly do and not do, they will tell you that they are not a lawyer. Which is why companies I work with cannot tolerate it anywhere, they just won't consider it. I think people who want to explain these things should do it on the base of use-cases instead of vague wording. So; - I start a AGPL system in a container and talk to it via the exposed API, I don't tell anyone I'm using it -> yes/no? - I start a AGPL system in a container and talk to it via the exposed API, I put in the About page that i'm using it -> yes/no? etc. But i'm sure if anyone does respond to this, it will start with IANAL and there still is nothing to base anything on. I know, this is the reason a lot of SaaS startups use the license; it's not clear enough what I can / cannot do. And companies cannot build businesses on that, so they just don't use it, making the solution effectively closed. I'm sure a lot of help is missed because of it; for instance, if I would be using something like this, I would (as required) feed my work back to the project, but now the lawyers of my company don't allow me to use it at all, so nothing gets fed back.
- chii 3y ago
  It's not compatible with the idea that you can just use the project for commercial purposes without giving some form of contribution back. That's a good outcome imho.

by krasin 3y ago

The source code license is AGPL-3.0 license. Perfect for these kinds of models: https://github.com/PixArt-alpha/PixArt-alpha https://github.com/PixArt-alpha/PixArt-alpha

ilaksh 3y ago

hm. so actually it's not compatible with commercial projects then.

Buttons840 3y ago
The output of the model is not under the same license. In fact, as far as I understand, the output would be your own copyright to license or not license however you please. AGPL really is a great license for this type of project. It maximizes the power of everyone without limiting fair commercial use.
krasin 3y ago
> hm. so actually it's not compatible with commercial projects then. Perfectly compatible: just keep all modifications to the original code in public. AGPL does not mean that all code from your company must be open-source, just whatever is in the same binary/program as the AGPL one.
- ilaksh 3y ago
  Maybe I need to read the AGPL again. I remember interpreting it as saying that if your service was dependant on the component then the license applies to the code for the rest of the service.
  - krasin 3y ago
    Please, do read it. Please, post it here if you find something that backs your recollection.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  There is a lot of corporate knee-jerk for the AGPL ; there are many different interpretations for it and when you ask different people what you can exactly do and not do, they will tell you that they are not a lawyer. Which is why companies I work with cannot tolerate it anywhere, they just won't consider it. I think people who want to explain these things should do it on the base of use-cases instead of vague wording. So; - I start a AGPL system in a container and talk to it via the exposed API, I don't tell anyone I'm using it -> yes/no? - I start a AGPL system in a container and talk to it via the exposed API, I put in the About page that i'm using it -> yes/no? etc. But i'm sure if anyone does respond to this, it will start with IANAL and there still is nothing to base anything on. I know, this is the reason a lot of SaaS startups use the license; it's not clear enough what I can / cannot do. And companies cannot build businesses on that, so they just don't use it, making the solution effectively closed. I'm sure a lot of help is missed because of it; for instance, if I would be using something like this, I would (as required) feed my work back to the project, but now the lawyers of my company don't allow me to use it at all, so nothing gets fed back.
chii 3y ago
It's not compatible with the idea that you can just use the project for commercial purposes without giving some form of contribution back. That's a good outcome imho.