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.

> 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).

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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)

> 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.

> 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.

> 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...

There are current open cases of people claiming “harm” for misinformation spouted by ChatGPT where it just makes up facts to satisfy user prompts.

There are current open cases where people are claiming “copyright violation” due to diffusion models satisfying user prompts.

AFAICT none of these cases are against the users who are prompting the models.

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.

Where does it prohibit commercial use? I’m not seeing that in the license.

The model license, 1(a) and 2(a)(i).

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.

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?

NOT a lawyer here, basially they meant, here the thing, please don't sue me if you messed up.

That's weird, because we do have extremely standard language to take care of that. That's just "warranty disclaimers"

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

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