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 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	user43928 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	tenuousemphasis 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You think they care about the probably unenforceable license terms?

▲

Luker88 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What.