| ▲ | unrented7977 8 hours 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. |
|
| ▲ | urbnspacecowboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I'm willing to bet a nonzero amount of its training material is GPL Image data? > GPL licensed instead and use it however the fuck I want GPL is not a "use it however the fuck I want" license. Maybe you're thinking of the WTFPL? |
|
| ▲ | user43928 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | KeplerBoy 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes? If you deploy the model and provide it on Openrouter (or elsewhere) you better have a license. | | |
| ▲ | bdonlan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not entirely clear far part of a model would be copyrightable in the first place - it’s the result of a mechanical process, where the inputs are someone else’s copyrighted works, after all, while copyright requires some form of creative input. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No need to deploy it publicly. It's 7B, it'll run on a 3090. | | |
| ▲ | KeplerBoy 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You talked about commercially deploying it. Of course nobody cares what you are doing on your own hardware for fun. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Usually the way the licenses are interpreted, if I run it myself and use it to generate $X million in revenue in my own business, I'm subject to the license. In this case, the license seems to cover any commercial usage at all, which would certainly include self-hosting for internal business purposes. Why even bother demanding such terms? Release the weights or don't release the weights, but this is silly. No one is going to pay them to run or host a 7B static image model. | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why not? If it's cheap enough, and presuming I had any reason to use an image model, I'd consider paying for it on OpenRouter over hosting it myself. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | soulofmischief 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It could have an attempt at steganographic watermarking trained into the model. | | | |
| ▲ | Tanjreeve 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That seems quite important. Definitely requires any grown up company to have to do a bunch of legal paperwork to use it. |
|
|
| ▲ | soulofmischief 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are not wrong, but will a judge and jury be competent enough to understand the difference after you've spent several hundred thousand in litigation? |
| |
| ▲ | dannyw 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You really think Alibaba is going to go around and sue in US courts for something like this? It’s more of something to scare companies with legal teams. If you’re an individual or hobbyist doing a side project the risk is essentially zero. |
|
|
| ▲ | JaggerJo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Agreed. |
