stable-diffusion-webui
stable-diffusion-webui copied to clipboard
AUTOMATIC1111
licensing phase 1 - esrgan code from @victorca25/iNNfer
Whether or not this repo has a license for the code written by @AUTOMATIC1111 and other contributors is up to the authors (re issue #2059)--however, at the very least, this repo is out of compliance with the license requirements of all the places where it copied code from projects that contain licenses requiring inclusion of their licenses.
Example (just picking one place at random): The code here: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/blob/master/modules/codeformer/codeformer_arch.py#L1 -- which notes that it was copied from sczhou/CodeFormer does not include a copy of the license from that codebase as noted in the repo for that source: https://github.com/sczhou/CodeFormer/blob/master/LICENSE#L1-L10
Any place that has copied code from other projects will need to be addressed before this software is legally usable.
I have started the process of proper licensing with this pull-request to add a license for a simpler case in code copied and derived from https://github.com/victorca25/iNNfer
There is no requirement to make this software legally usable. Just clone and use it. If you'd like, you can make an extension with those changes.
There is no requirement to make this software legally usable. Just clone and use it. If you'd like, you can make an extension with those changes.
What do you mean by "there is no requirement"? Requirement by who? Clearly, a lot of users in this repository think that there is such a requirement. If you mean something along the lines of "There is no need, I am giving you verbal permission to use this code" then please understand that your permission is not sufficient.
There is a list of credits for open source projects in the README. It seems, that you have copied code from at least some of them. Because there is no license specified for the repo, it is very hard to figure out, which parts of the code are open source and which parts are written and owned by you (or owned by each contributor).
If you want other people to have the ability to use/modify this repo without them doing something illegal, you have to at least add the correct licenses to the open source code that you have used. These LICENSEs won't apply to the whole code base, only to the open source code, that you have used.
You can keep full ownership of the code that you have written without choosing a particular LICENSE, but you have to make your stance on the matter clear (preferably in the README or somewhere else in the repo instead of in random issue comments).
To clarify for those coming from Reddit – this isn't a matter of the work of this repo' authors. It is a matter of using code licensed under MIT, GPL or similar licenses that requires the license to be included with redistributions. Not doing so exposes this repo to legal trouble, even if it might sound nonsensical.
There is no requirement to make this software legally usable. Just clone and use it. If you'd like, you can make an extension with those changes.
Your words mean nothing. If that is really your intention, then add a license stating that very fact. By not including a license on this project, the code is copyrighted and you retain every single right. Technically, everyone who has ever forked or cloned this project and ran it has just broken copyright law. It is not "open source". If you really want people to clone it and use it legally, then add a license stating so.
You also copied a lot of open source code from other projects and stripped away their licenses, which is a violation of the terms they were distributed in. If someone like @victorca25 wanted, they could submit a DMCA notice and takedown this project.
This project will not have a future without a license.
Pretty sure AUTOMATIC1111 is just saying he doesn't care about the licensing problems and if you do, feel free to make the changes to bring the repo into compliance. (or on your own fork?)
Pretty sure AUTOMATIC1111 is just saying he doesn't care about the licensing problems and if you do, feel free to make the changes to bring the repo into compliance. (or on your own fork?)
seems that way... but adding attribution/licenses for previously copied code is just a low-impact baby-step, which only solves 1 of 3 issues that are blocking companies like mine from using and contributing to this repo as OSS:
- accounting for existing violations of licenses from prior sources (like I've done with one, this could just be addressed in a fork for all places where code has been copied to date, so not necessarily a blocker--though some of the copied code may be of questionable sourcing)
- the attitude of not caring about licensing or code copying going forward (which could mean any commit from here on out is a potential liability for Big Unnamed Media Company)
- the project itself not having a usage or contribution license--this entirely prevents me from deploying this as a collaboration tool internally, which would be the reason to contribute to further development
I'd love to show this to an animation team and allocate working hours to exploring and contributing to this repo as open source but the current stance means that groups like mine are going to have to build our own UI tools--not the end of the world but disappointing. If this project wants to maximize usage and contributing power, fixing these licensing issues will greatly expand the reach and quality of code contributors.
Simple as this: if you are concerned about legal issues, don't use this repo. AUTOMATIC1111 is not here to serve anyone or make sure people abide by the law. By using/forking this repo, you already accept the possible legal risks that a license-free repo could bring, and there is no reason to change that.
Of course, if anyone thinks he illegally used their work, they can always file complaints to AUTOMATIC1111 or even to github, then they can progress from there.
muhh license muhhh legality just move this to a selfhosted gitlab instance and forget about it
