License

[fakerybakery]

Hi, Thank you for releasing this, I noticed you mentioned that this is an “open source” project but the license is NC which doesn’t classify as an open source license. Is there any chance of could be changed or does the technology this repo depends on also have that license? Thanks!

[bhack]

Also cause there are other efforts under apache license so it could be nice eventually to exchange the cocde https://github.com/mini-sora/minisora

[jaretburkett]

If it is not one of these licenses, it is not open source https://opensource.org/license .

[bhack]

If it is not one of these licenses, it is not open source https://opensource.org/license .

For pure code it is true but more in general it is still WIP: https://opensource.org/deepdive

[Colinw2292]

This is worse than openai.. at least they are transparent that they are closed source, these guys are asking for open source help and in fact are closed sourced.

[fakerybakery]

cc @LinB203

[fakerybakery]

Personally, I do think open access is better than closed-source with no way for the public to use it but it would be nice to not label it as open source if it’s not licensed under a compliant license

[ninjasaid2k]

https://github.com/hpcaitech/Open-Sora - version with apache license.

[LinB203]

Change to MIT.

[fakerybakery]

Thanks!!

[fakerybakery]

Does this code still use the official DiT implementation which is NC-licensed?

[kabachuha]

The code is switching away from DiT

[fakerybakery]

Thanks for changing it @kabachuha! Unfortunately there's still

The service is a research preview intended for non-commercial use only. See LICENSE for details.

in the README, would you mind removing it? Thanks!

[fakerybakery]

cc @LinB203

[LinB203]

It is still in the research stage.

[xnmt9]

It is still in the research stage.

@LinB203 They were referring to the fact that the README still says it's non-commercial, even though the license is permissive.

[LinB203]

Fixed.