upvote

points

by jfoster8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby kloud7 hours ago|
next
[-]
Calling open-weights as open-source in marketing materials is the usual misrepresentation. But now with the restriction on commercial use (which is against opensource definition) it is not even open-weights, technically it would be more accurate to call it weights-available.
reply
upvoteby NewJazz5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And the only reason source available had any significance is that you could look at something and understand it. Weights are much much more opaque.

It's just freeware.

reply
upvoteby unrented79777 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby urbnspacecowboy1 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?

reply
upvoteby user439287 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.

reply
upvoteby CamperBob26 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?

reply
upvoteby KeplerBoy6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes? If you deploy the model and provide it on Openrouter (or elsewhere) you better have a license.
reply
upvoteby bdonlan1 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.
reply
upvoteby CamperBob25 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No need to deploy it publicly. It's 7B, it'll run on a 3090.
reply
upvoteby KeplerBoy5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You talked about commercially deploying it. Of course nobody cares what you are doing on your own hardware for fun.
reply
upvoteby CamperBob25 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.

reply
upvoteby nozzlegear4 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.
reply
upvoteby soulofmischief6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It could have an attempt at steganographic watermarking trained into the model.
reply
upvoteby iwontberude6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby Tanjreeve6 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.
reply
upvoteby soulofmischief6 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?
reply
upvoteby dannyw6 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.

reply
upvoteby JaggerJo7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Agreed.
reply
upvoteby gregoriol8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Was going to post about this: the last image models with Apache 2.0 license seem to be from 2025, recent Qwen models are "non-commercial use".
reply
upvoteby bloaf7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I love the non-commercial clauses because of how many people are using these for deceptive ads and “virtual staging” and fake social media accounts. Anything that makes those guys lives harder while still letting me make silly pictures for my kids and tapestries for my D&D campaign feel fine by me.
reply
upvoteby user439287 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This achieves absolutely nothing to that end.

People can continue to use closed SOTA models to generate outputs for commercial or malicious purposes.

What this research license achieves is that we cannot use this model in applications we publish.

reply
upvoteby tenuousemphasis7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You think they care about the probably unenforceable license terms?
reply
upvoteby Luker887 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Companies can use llm to license-wash open source code regardless of license.

How difficult would it be to use this model to create a second model without licensing issues?

reply
upvoteby Zambyte7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Why would you even do that? Just... use it? There hasn't been any legal precedent on if models can even be copyright restricted. Labs just keep publishing license documents as if they matter.
reply
upvoteby zdragnar7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, it is an indication that it matters to the lab, so if you don't want legal fees to be the first one to set precedent, then it does matter a great deal.
reply
upvoteby Zambyte6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You could say the same thing about "license-washing" the model. It seems like you're just going through a guaranteed expensive process to have roughly the same risk as just using the model and potentially getting hit with legal fees.
reply
upvoteby Sharlin6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What.
reply
upvoteby plufz7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What are the top image models that still use a less restrictive license today?
reply
upvoteby vunderba7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Boogu-Image has the Apache 2.0 License [1] (good coherence, but outputs can look synthetic).

And Krea 2 has a community license [2] that is fairly permissive - I think commercial usage is allowed under $1 million.

Boogu-Image scored 6/15 and Krea 2 scored 7/15 on my GenAI Showdown benchmark [3] - only Ideogram4 eclipses them in terms of local models, but its got a far more restrictive license and the JSON structured inputs can be a pain to work with.

[1] - https://github.com/Boogu-Project/Boogu-Image

[2] - https://www.krea.ai/krea-2-licensing

[3] - https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=fd,hd,kd,qi,f2d,zt,...

reply
upvoteby ReptileMan7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Tune the weights a bit and call them derivative work.
reply