If you want a no-corpos license, then don't use a license at all. Morality clauses are also non-free, though I'll settle for "don't use this for political disinformation campaigns or porn" over "pony up for our hosted API where we can enforce new morality clauses whenever we like". At least, assuming that the model weights are copyrightable, which they might not be. Morality clauses are incompatible with all flavors of GPL, and the "program" clause in GPL is vague enough to encompass the model weights. So Perl, PHP, and Python to varying degrees.Īlso, let's keep in mind that Stable Diffusion's weights are licensed under a moderate copyleft with a morality clause - CreativeML OpenRAIL-M. AGPL only works for one particular use case, which is web applications written in an interpreted language that can introspect its own source code. My favorite is an Ethernet PHY, which practically speaking cannot offer AGPL source in the way the license intends. Hector Martin has documented a few different cases of terrible AGPL uses. And compliance is not always obvious, either. This is not how any other Free license works. If you don't do this, then people who want to modify your code need to first build the license compliance mechanism before they can do anything else. Mostly because AGPL is not a Free license unless you take great pains to build license compliance into the program that you ship. >Commercial interests are very allergic to AGPL which ensures the project stays community-run In retrospect it seems to be less an argument about whether or not copyleft clauses are bad and more to do with Berkley not wanting to deal with RMS. As far as I'm aware the GPL/BSD license argument is basically dead now and people just use whatever.
0 kommentar(er)
