(IMPORTANT) Add a license to this repository

[moorehousew]

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.

[moorehousew]

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.

[Semisol]

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.

[C43H66N12O12S2]

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.

[Semisol]

The GPL licenses are a bit strict in my opinion but we'll see.

[moorehousew]

AGPL/LGPL isn't too bad either. Just not anything titled "GPL v3", please.

[barleyj21]

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

[ZeroCool22]

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

[CapableWeb]

There is a issue about this already: #24

It was closed without any sort of resolution nor any mention about why it was closed.

[moorehousew]

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.

[junguler]

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

[knobz]

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.

[Engineer-of-Stuff]

I think making this repo closed-source is a great idea.

[LumiWasTaken]

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?

[CapableWeb]

1. Some people are under the impression that this repository is Open Source software, which it currently is not.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Everyone contributing code technically retains the copyright over the code they wrote and contributed, which furthers make licensing a mess.

6. 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.

[LumiWasTaken]

1. Some people are under the impression that this repository is Open Source software, which it currently is not.

   2. 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

   3. 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.

   4. 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.

   5. Everyone contributing code technically retains the copyright over the code they wrote and contributed, which furthers make licensing a mess.

   6. 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.