4 ms·

A lot of the previous Qwen models seem to have used Apache licenses, among others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwen#List_of_models https://en.wikipedia.org/w

by jfoster 12d ago

A lot of the previous Qwen models seem to have used Apache licenses, among others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwen#List_of_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwen#List_of_models Unfortunately, it looks like this model is using a much more restrictive license: https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen-Image-2.1/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen-Image-2.1/blob/main/LICENSE

gregoriol 12d ago
Was going to post about this: the last image models with Apache 2.0 license seem to be from 2025, recent Qwen models are "non-commercial use".
- bloaf 12d ago
  I love the non-commercial clauses because of how many people are using these for deceptive ads and “virtual staging” and fake social media accounts. Anything that makes those guys lives harder while still letting me make silly pictures for my kids and tapestries for my D&D campaign feel fine by me.
  - tenuousemphasis 12d ago
    You think they care about the probably unenforceable license terms?
  - user43928 12d ago
    This achieves absolutely nothing to that end. People can continue to use closed SOTA models to generate outputs for commercial or malicious purposes. What this research license achieves is that we cannot use this model in applications we publish.
- Luker88 12d ago
  Companies can use llm to license-wash open source code regardless of license. How difficult would it be to use this model to create a second model without licensing issues?
  - Zambyte 12d ago
    Why would you even do that? Just... use it? There hasn't been any legal precedent on if models can even be copyright restricted. Labs just keep publishing license documents as if they matter.
    - zdragnar 12d ago
      Well, it is an indication that it matters to the lab, so if you don't want legal fees to be the first one to set precedent, then it does matter a great deal.
      - Zambyte 12d ago
        You could say the same thing about "license-washing" the model. It seems like you're just going through a guaranteed expensive process to have roughly the same risk as just using the model and potentially getting hit with legal fees.
  - Sharlin 12d ago
    What.
  - cleaning 12d ago
    No one really cares about licenses, especially now. Just use it, the odds of consequences are unfathomably low.
unrented7977 12d ago
I'm willing to bet a nonzero amount of its training material is GPL, so I'll treat it as GPL licensed instead and use it however the fuck I want. If AI labs get to ignore licenses, so do we.
- JaggerJo 12d ago
  Agreed.
- user43928 12d ago
  It's not going to matter unless you plan to commercially deploy the model, as far as I see. If you were to generate outputs for commercial use, I think it would still violate this research license, but it's not like they are going to know, are they? That said, I am disappointed that the model is not actually open-weights as I expected based on the headline.
  - soulofmischief 12d ago
    It could have an attempt at steganographic watermarking trained into the model.
    - iwontberude 12d ago
      [dead]
  - Tanjreeve 12d ago
    That seems quite important. Definitely requires any grown up company to have to do a bunch of legal paperwork to use it.
  - CamperBob2 12d ago
    It's not going to matter unless you plan to commercially deploy the model, as far as I see. It's not going to matter then, either. What are they going to do, sue me for copyright infringement?
    - 12d ago
plufz 12d ago
What are the top image models that still use a less restrictive license today?
- vunderba 12d ago
  Boogu-Image has the Apache 2.0 License [1] (good coherence, but outputs can look synthetic). And Krea 2 has a community license [2] that is fairly permissive - I think commercial usage is allowed under $1 million. Boogu-Image scored 6/15 and Krea 2 scored 7/15 on my GenAI Showdown benchmark [3] - only Ideogram4 eclipses them in terms of local models, but its got a far more restrictive license and the JSON structured inputs can be a pain to work with. [1] - https://github.com/Boogu-Project/Boogu-Image https://github.com/Boogu-Project/Boogu-Image [2] - https://www.krea.ai/krea-2-licensing https://www.krea.ai/krea-2-licensing [3] - https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=fd,hd,kd,qi,f2d,zt,id4,k2,sxj,bg1 https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=fd,hd,kd,qi,f2d,zt,...
kloud 12d ago
Calling open-weights as open-source in marketing materials is the usual misrepresentation. But now with the restriction on commercial use (which is against opensource definition) it is not even open-weights, technically it would be more accurate to call it weights-available.
- NewJazz 12d ago
  And the only reason source available had any significance is that you could look at something and understand it. Weights are much much more opaque. It's just freeware.
  - j-bos 12d ago
    Though weights can be finetuned and quantized.
    - NewJazz 12d ago
      Is it legal in this case?
ReptileMan 12d ago
Tune the weights a bit and call them derivative work.
user43928 11d ago
I have seen comments on X that they will consider a revenue cap for the non-commercial restriction. A researcher commented among the lines that they have no interest in restricting creators from using it for monetized YT content. The way he put it, it suggested they are at this time looking to understand use cases rather than necessarily limit or charge for commercial use, and he recommended reaching out to the commercial team. So it sounds like one could likely receive a free commercial license if needed.

by jfoster 12d ago

gregoriol 12d ago

Was going to post about this: the last image models with Apache 2.0 license seem to be from 2025, recent Qwen models are "non-commercial use".

bloaf 12d ago
I love the non-commercial clauses because of how many people are using these for deceptive ads and “virtual staging” and fake social media accounts. Anything that makes those guys lives harder while still letting me make silly pictures for my kids and tapestries for my D&D campaign feel fine by me.
- tenuousemphasis 12d ago
  You think they care about the probably unenforceable license terms?
- user43928 12d ago
  This achieves absolutely nothing to that end. People can continue to use closed SOTA models to generate outputs for commercial or malicious purposes. What this research license achieves is that we cannot use this model in applications we publish.
Luker88 12d ago
Companies can use llm to license-wash open source code regardless of license. How difficult would it be to use this model to create a second model without licensing issues?
- Zambyte 12d ago
  Why would you even do that? Just... use it? There hasn't been any legal precedent on if models can even be copyright restricted. Labs just keep publishing license documents as if they matter.
  - zdragnar 12d ago
    Well, it is an indication that it matters to the lab, so if you don't want legal fees to be the first one to set precedent, then it does matter a great deal.
    - Zambyte 12d ago
      You could say the same thing about "license-washing" the model. It seems like you're just going through a guaranteed expensive process to have roughly the same risk as just using the model and potentially getting hit with legal fees.
- Sharlin 12d ago
  What.
- cleaning 12d ago
  No one really cares about licenses, especially now. Just use it, the odds of consequences are unfathomably low.

unrented7977 12d ago

I'm willing to bet a nonzero amount of its training material is GPL, so I'll treat it as GPL licensed instead and use it however the fuck I want. If AI labs get to ignore licenses, so do we.

JaggerJo 12d ago
Agreed.
user43928 12d ago
It's not going to matter unless you plan to commercially deploy the model, as far as I see. If you were to generate outputs for commercial use, I think it would still violate this research license, but it's not like they are going to know, are they? That said, I am disappointed that the model is not actually open-weights as I expected based on the headline.
- soulofmischief 12d ago
  It could have an attempt at steganographic watermarking trained into the model.
  - iwontberude 12d ago
    [dead]
- Tanjreeve 12d ago
  That seems quite important. Definitely requires any grown up company to have to do a bunch of legal paperwork to use it.
- CamperBob2 12d ago
  It's not going to matter unless you plan to commercially deploy the model, as far as I see. It's not going to matter then, either. What are they going to do, sue me for copyright infringement?
  - 12d ago

plufz 12d ago

What are the top image models that still use a less restrictive license today?

vunderba 12d ago
Boogu-Image has the Apache 2.0 License [1] (good coherence, but outputs can look synthetic). And Krea 2 has a community license [2] that is fairly permissive - I think commercial usage is allowed under $1 million. Boogu-Image scored 6/15 and Krea 2 scored 7/15 on my GenAI Showdown benchmark [3] - only Ideogram4 eclipses them in terms of local models, but its got a far more restrictive license and the JSON structured inputs can be a pain to work with. [1] - https://github.com/Boogu-Project/Boogu-Image https://github.com/Boogu-Project/Boogu-Image [2] - https://www.krea.ai/krea-2-licensing https://www.krea.ai/krea-2-licensing [3] - https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=fd,hd,kd,qi,f2d,zt,id4,k2,sxj,bg1 https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=fd,hd,kd,qi,f2d,zt,...

kloud 12d ago

Calling open-weights as open-source in marketing materials is the usual misrepresentation. But now with the restriction on commercial use (which is against opensource definition) it is not even open-weights, technically it would be more accurate to call it weights-available.

NewJazz 12d ago
And the only reason source available had any significance is that you could look at something and understand it. Weights are much much more opaque. It's just freeware.
- j-bos 12d ago
  Though weights can be finetuned and quantized.
  - NewJazz 12d ago
    Is it legal in this case?

ReptileMan 12d ago

Tune the weights a bit and call them derivative work.

user43928 11d ago

I have seen comments on X that they will consider a revenue cap for the non-commercial restriction. A researcher commented among the lines that they have no interest in restricting creators from using it for monetized YT content. The way he put it, it suggested they are at this time looking to understand use cases rather than necessarily limit or charge for commercial use, and he recommended reaching out to the commercial team. So it sounds like one could likely receive a free commercial license if needed.