stable-diffusion-webui
stable-diffusion-webui copied to clipboard
AUTOMATIC1111
(IMPORTANT) Add a license to this repository
I just noticed there isn't a license file in this repository (why???). Please add one ASAP, both to protect yourself from copyright suits (which any collaborator could probably bring against you as-is), as well as end-users.
I recommend the MIT license, personally.
EDIT: I also noticed a prior discussion (#24) about this. Don't close this issue until you get this done, as it is likely a more serious problem than you realize. Bukkit was killed because of licensing stupidity.
IANAL, but if NovelAI has copied any code from this repository (as I've seen claimed), this is also a clear case of copyright infringement because they didn't have a license explicitly granting such a right.
I would recommend BSD-3 or MIT. If you would like to go on the more strict side of things use AGPL which I personally do not like.
The last time this was discussed @AUTOMATIC1111 was partial to AGPL. IMO LGPL or AGPL v3 would be fine though it'd be nice to hear from the plugin makers.
AGPL/LGPL isn't too bad either. Just not anything titled "GPL v3", please.
IANAL, but if NovelAI has copied any code from this repository (as I've seen claimed), this is also a clear case of copyright infringement because they didn't have a license explicitly granting such a right.
If NovelAI did actually reuse AUTOMATIC1111's code, and AUTOMATIC1111 later licenses this code as MIT or some other permissive license, then did NovelAI retroactively not do anything illegal?
NovelAI could take legal action against this repo. A permissive license might take away AUTOMATIC1111's leverage against legal action toward him by NovelAI. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like it's getting very complicated. What are the legal implications of changing the license now when two sides have already accused each other of code theft?
What is the default agreement with github when a person create an account and a repository here? Maybe Automatic1111 is already fine and if he adds some license it would instead make things much worse
What is the default agreement with github when a person create an account and a repository here? Maybe Automatic1111 is already fine and if he adds some license it would instead make things much worse
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#f-copyright-infringement-and-dmca-policy
There is a issue about this already: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/issues/24
It was closed without any sort of resolution nor any mention about why it was closed.
If NovelAI did actually reuse AUTOMATIC1111's code, and AUTOMATIC1111 later licenses this code as MIT or some other permissive license, then did NovelAI retroactively not do anything illegal?
If you copy someone's work at a certain date, and are granted a license at a later date- your use during the start of that period to its end was still illegal, and you're still liable for damages/royalties that arose during that period. A grant of rights must explicitly be retroactive for it to be, well, retroactive.
What is the default agreement with github when a person create an account and a repository here? Maybe Automatic1111 is already fine and if he adds some license it would instead make things much worse
GitHub's ToS protects GitHub from copyright infringement via the forking functionality on the site. It does not protect any repository owner or any end-user from claims of tort over distributing, downloading, compiling, or otherwise using the software in question in any way from litigious collaborators.
doesn't this repo make use of other repositories with different kinds of licenses? some of them don't even mention a widely known free license and just link to a document file, so if automatic1111 decides to choose a license ideally it should be one that reflects/allows that
All NAI drama aside, It would be good to see a license of any kind added as there's a rampant rumor AUTOMATIC is planning to take this repo closed source.
I feel like y'all are a bit overreacting ... just let a guy who enjoys doing stuff do his stuff he is probably aware of the risk and the down / upsides along with the effort that comes with it.
You can see he is putting his time into making this something even more amazing than it is and discussions like this only do... what? People unrelated to the Owner discussing what the owner should and should not do?
Make a fork add your own stuff if you feel the need to?
-
Some people are under the impression that this repository is Open Source software, which it currently is not.
-
It's harder for the community to contribute to a project where the owner has 100% copyright over any code in the repository, it stops being in the benefit for the community and starts being in benefit for the owner
-
Other project who want to base their work on what's going on here or be inspired by any feature, risk getting into legal trouble if they do so.
-
You could technically fork the repository via GitHub but again, that might put you at legal risk and what exactly you can do to avoid that, is unclear.
-
Everyone contributing code technically retains the copyright over the code they wrote and contributed, which furthers make licensing a mess.
-
Not being clear about the license (closed source, open source, source available, whatever) potentially opens them up to lawsuits themselves, which is never good.
I'm not saying what license Automatic1111 should chose here (as I said in https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/issues/24#issuecomment-1272041887), I just don't want the situation to be ambiguous.
It's perfectly fine if Automatic1111 wants to have 100% copyright over any code committed to this repository, and within their right of course, but they should make that 100% clear in that case, by adding some sort of official information about this, in a file named LICENSE or COPYRIGHT, or add something about it to the readme, so there is no ambiguity of what license this code lives under.
Some people are under the impression that this repository is Open Source software, which it currently is not.
It's harder for the community to contribute to a project where the owner has 100% copyright over any code in the repository, it stops being in the benefit for the community and starts being in benefit for the owner
Other project who want to base their work on what's going on here or be inspired by any feature, risk getting into legal trouble if they do so.
You could technically fork the repository via GitHub but again, that might put you at legal risk and what exactly you can do to avoid that, is unclear.
Everyone contributing code technically retains the copyright over the code they wrote and contributed, which furthers make licensing a mess.
Not being clear about the license (closed source, open source, source available, whatever) potentially opens them up to lawsuits themselves, which is never good.
I'm not saying what license Automatic1111 should chose here (as I said in #24 (comment)), I just don't want the situation to be ambiguous.
It's perfectly fine if Automatic1111 wants to have 100% copyright over any code committed to this repository, and within their right of course, but they should make that 100% clear in that case, by adding some sort of official information about this, in a file named LICENSE or COPYRIGHT, or add something about it to the readme, so there is no ambiguity of what license this code lives under.
just let a guy who enjoys doing stuff do his stuff he is probably aware of the risk and the down / upsides along with the effort that comes with it.
You might have valid points. Yet you are missing the point of that ur not forced to work on it if you do fear risking a lawsuit or anything.
He certainly does have a brain and i'd assume he is aware of it.
Yet you are missing the point of that ur not forced to work on it if you do fear risking a lawsuit or anything.
Of course, no one is forced to do anything. But I do want to use it and I want to embed it in other things I'm building too, but currently I can't, without needing to lawyer up first, which sucks a bit.
Of course, no one is forced to do anything. But I do want to use it and I want to embed it in other things I'm building too, but currently I can't, without needing to lawyer up first, which sucks a bit.
What i'm reading inbetween the lines here is then: YOU want to use it in your project YOU are too spooked because of legal stuff.
Then yes, i can see how badly you want it to be licensed.
But on the other side he has much more important stuff to do... have u ever considered that he might have many more things he'd like to do and add before people use it too widely?
I want to be able to use it and contribute back additions like anyone else in the community, but right now I'm standoffish on doing so as there is no license. Others expressed the same sentiment.
Not sure why you're speaking for @AUTOMATIC1111 when they could jump into this issue whenever they want themselves. Until then, I think I made my point clear and hope for the sake of the community that eventually there is some sort of license added, FOSS or not.
Seems there has been a suggested addition of adding a LICENSE file, together with various licenses of embedded/used projects, overall looks very good :clap: :clap: :clap:
Hoping for a clear LICENSE. Though I don't know much about legal matters, a LICENSE gives me peace of mind when developing for this project. Or an explanation for no LICENSE? There are also some repos without a license.
Nobody forces you to stay here. He isnt taking money for all of this He is sitting 8 Hours here pushing commits
And all of you here have nothing better to do than to cry about License and Copied code.
Just let the guy enjoy his life and look for alternatives if you cannot handle someone not listening to you.
That Reddit screenshot is the perfect Summary of what 99% of people here feel like.
If u are not happy with it, move on. Why ruin the fun? Nobody is being harmed here.
Nobody forces you to stay here. He isnt taking money for all of this He is sitting 8 Hours here pushing commits And all of you here have nothing better to do than to cry about License and Copied code. Just let the guy enjoy his life and look for alternatives if you cannot handle someone not listening to you.
It is said that culture is created by leadership. It begs the question, is this culture compatible with laws and are contributors aware of the anti open source behavior? Will there be further efforts to block giving people the ability to understand and make informed decisions?
That Reddit screenshot is the perfect Summary of what 99% of people here feel like. If u are not happy with it, move on. Why ruin the fun? Nobody is being harmed here.
Weighing the fun against a having a sustainable project which isn't relegated to seedy sites which ignore transgressions. When and if this project gets booted off Github (which seems inevitable with the displayed attitudes), the same 99% will complain that they are being victimized without owning up to the fact that there were plenty of opportunities to right the course. Project leaders know this and are already planning an exit #2268
The harm is that many users believe they are contributing to an open source project. They may not realize that Auto is asserting himself as code owner
master/CODEOWNERS This means that the code is not free, and does not support the commons.
Note that "CODEOWNERS" is not intended to determine who owns the code in an intellectual property context. https://github.blog/2017-07-06-introducing-code-owners/ It is simply a file that allows GitHub to automatically assign people to the review process. I would also strongly prefer that the open source license be explicitly marked on this repository. However, your obstructive comments on multiple pull requests seem to me to be a self-centered act that is disruptive to the order of the open ~~source~~ development community.
Oh uh, looks like we did hit a sensitive spot reaches out for the popcorn
open source community.
Please advise me which open source license people are contributing under? There is no open source community here at this time. At worst, its a self proclaimed pirating community.
I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree that this project is not open source in the strict sense of the word, but I think what you are doing is, in any case, an act of harassment.
And don't forget that "No license" is also still a license on its own 🤡
In our case, we are allowed to fork from the GitHub terms of service, just not allowed to distribute/share it ourselves. So long as we always give AUTOMATIC1111 his repositories we still comply with it.
Anyway, I agree with @yuuki76 that this more harassment and spam at this point.
