(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.

[CapableWeb]

Yet you are missing the point of that ur not forced to work on it if you do fear risking a lawsuit or anything.

Of course, no one is forced to do anything. But I do want to use it and I want to embed it in other things I'm building too, but currently I can't, without needing to lawyer up first, which sucks a bit.

[LumiWasTaken]

Of course, no one is forced to do anything. But I do want to use it and I want to embed it in other things I'm building too, but currently I can't, without needing to lawyer up first, which sucks a bit.

What i'm reading inbetween the lines here is then:
YOU want to use it in your project
YOU are too spooked because of legal stuff.

Then yes, i can see how badly you want it to be licensed.

But on the other side he has much more important stuff to do... have u ever considered that he might have many more things he'd like to do and add before people use it too widely?

[CapableWeb]

I want to be able to use it and contribute back additions like anyone else in the community, but right now I'm standoffish on doing so as there is no license. Others expressed the same sentiment.

Not sure why you're speaking for @AUTOMATIC1111 when they could jump into this issue whenever they want themselves. Until then, I think I made my point clear and hope for the sake of the community that eventually there is some sort of license added, FOSS or not.

[LumiWasTaken]

Pretty sure Automatic has more relevant things to do ^^

[CapableWeb]

Seems there has been a suggested addition of adding a LICENSE file, together with various licenses of embedded/used projects, overall looks very good 👏 👏 👏

[LumiWasTaken]

Highly doubt it will be Merged.

[aoirusann]

Hoping for a clear LICENSE.
Though I don't know much about legal matters, a LICENSE gives me peace of mind when developing for this project.
Or an explanation for no LICENSE? There are also some repos without a license.

[LumiWasTaken]

Nobody forces you to stay here.
He isnt taking money for all of this
He is sitting 8 Hours here pushing commits

And all of you here have nothing better to do than to cry about License and Copied code.

Just let the guy enjoy his life and look for alternatives if you cannot handle someone not listening to you.

[LumiWasTaken]

That Reddit screenshot is the perfect Summary of what 99% of people here feel like.

If u are not happy with it, move on.
Why ruin the fun? Nobody is being harmed here.

Nobody forces you to stay here. He isnt taking money for all of this He is sitting 8 Hours here pushing commits
And all of you here have nothing better to do than to cry about License and Copied code.
Just let the guy enjoy his life and look for alternatives if you cannot handle someone not listening to you.

It is said that culture is created by leadership. It begs the question, is this culture compatible with laws and are contributors aware of the anti open source behavior? Will there be further efforts to block giving people the ability to understand and make informed decisions?

[krisfail]

That Reddit screenshot is the perfect Summary of what 99% of people here feel like.
If u are not happy with it, move on. Why ruin the fun? Nobody is being harmed here.

Weighing the fun against a having a sustainable project which isn't relegated to seedy sites which ignore transgressions. When and if this project gets booted off Github (which seems inevitable with the displayed attitudes), the same 99% will complain that they are being victimized without owning up to the fact that there were plenty of opportunities to right the course. Project leaders know this and are already planning an exit #2268

The harm is that many users believe they are contributing to an open source project. They may not realize that Auto is asserting himself as code owner master/CODEOWNERS This means that the code is not free, and does not support the commons.

Note that "CODEOWNERS" is not intended to determine who owns the code in an intellectual property context.
https://github.blog/2017-07-06-introducing-code-owners/
It is simply a file that allows GitHub to automatically assign people to the review process.
I would also strongly prefer that the open source license be explicitly marked on this repository.
However, your obstructive comments on multiple pull requests seem to me to be a self-centered act that is disruptive to the order of the open source development community.

[LumiWasTaken]

Thank you @yuuki76 for writing out my Thoughts in a polite way.

[LumiWasTaken]

Oh uh, looks like we did hit a sensitive spot reaches out for the popcorn

[krisfail]

open source community.

Please advise me which open source license people are contributing under? There is no open source community here at this time. At worst, its a self proclaimed pirating community.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree that this project is not open source in the strict sense of the word, but I think what you are doing is, in any case, an act of harassment.

[d8ahazard]

I personally would encourage going with an open source license that allows free distribution and reuse of the project, and discourages anyone from trying to sell our work. But, that's just my opinion, and I'm open to going with whatever automatic wants to do. I'm just a contributor after all. (CC-BY-NC)

…

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, 4:28 AM C43H66N12O12S2 ***@***.***> wrote: @stefnotch <https://github.com/stefnotch> Personally, I'm willing to sign the ownership of my code to Automatic or sign whichever license he'd pick. @AUTOMATIC1111 <https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111> This has been a continuing discussion and pain point for some people. I believe it'd be much appreciated if you stated your plans - even if that plan is continuing with no license. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2059 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMO4NCMYPKMYBFNNAOQNB3WEZJE5ANCNFSM6AAAAAARATYJWM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Ronsor]

CC-BY-NC is not a license meant for code (non of the creative commons ones are).

[d8ahazard]

Yeah, but that's not really true. It can be used for software.

…

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 7:20 PM Ronsor ***@***.***> wrote: CC-BY-NC is not a license meant for code (non of the creative commons ones are). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2059 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMO4NFTFJNQ2S6SFVSC3ITWFHDD3ANCNFSM6AAAAAARATYJWM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Ronsor]

It can be, but it generally shouldn't be. I think a GPL-family license would be best: AGPLv3 (first choice), or GPLv2+ (second choice)

Edit: also NC licenses are not FOSS

[stefnotch]

endomorphosis, C43H66N12O12S2, 8ahazard Thank you very much for taking your time to respond. Here's to hoping that AUTOMATIC1111 eventually finds the time to take a look at this issue.

And quick note regarding the quite lovely CC-BY-NC license: Creative commons themselves doesn't really recommend using it for code. It probably isn't too bad if one uses a CC license, but it's also reasonably easy to pick one that's designed for software.
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

[endomorphosis]

I see that there is a comment that has been deleted, i want to repost that comment here:

"Whether or not this repo has a license for the code written by @AUTOMATIC1111 and other contributors is up to the authors--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 that have license requirements of including the source license will need to be addressed before this software is legally usable.

This is absolutely correct, and I can only imagine that Automatic is not putting a license on the code, because of the legal allegations that were made by novelAI, and the counterarguments, that he stole from novelAI and NovelAI stole from him. I can only guess that automatic has not responded, because of the allegations and the common sense "no self snitching", as well as keeping the code as a weapon to claim copyright violations against others. However I find it disheartening, that he might allow many people to violate his copryrights, and yet that he might have to use it as a defense against copyright infringement suits.

I really wish that this whole NovelAI drama was put to rest, and that the project was given a copyright license.

[atomantic]

@endomorphosis thanks for the additional thoughts--I realized after commenting that it would be best to start the process of properly licensing code included from other places in a merge request :) #4222

Hopefully this is a pattern that will be adopted at least for code that has been "borrowed" or "copied" from referenced sources without proper license inclusion.

The CodeFormer case is a bit more complicated as it means that this codebase cannot be used commercially without an agreement specifically from S-Lab. I have not gone through and audited all the code yet within this repo to track sub-license requirements but it's worth doing as some copied code could have any kind of license that requires or restricts usage (or like this project, no license, making it technically illegal even for non-commercial use). I'm not a copyright lawyer but I think liability waivers and "as-is" claims inside popular libraries like MIT mean that liability for copied code sourced without permission fall through the chain of usage all the way to the final user and do not stop at the offending source copier.

[neural-loop]

@atomantic If you check the Codeformer repo, I think they did not have the S-Lab licence applied until after the date that the code was copied into this repository. When it was copied it was under a creative commons share alike (maybe non-commercial, don't remember for sure)

[atomantic]

@neural-loop according to the commit history, the LICENSE file was added--and there was no license before. Unless I'm missing a prior license file or statement within the project, I believe this project was formerly unlicensed (meaning possibly never had commercial allowance): https://github.com/sczhou/CodeFormer/commits/master/LICENSE

[neural-loop]

@atomantic Check https://github.com/sczhou/CodeFormer/blob/3be238a2416ea1cffcdeff0f6eac0f4c1c400233/README.md

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1A under section 6 a,b

Looking at this, I think he would have to follow the S-Lab license to continue using the CodeFormer code, as it appears he was aware it was licensed - as he did provide some attribution.

In another situation where code was used from person who had released code under public domain, he did not provide attribution until the person pleaded with him. They mentioned Auto was unwilling to provide the attribution requested. However, it's different circumstances given it was public domain.

[Baughn]

I just want to know if I'm allowed to run the code in this repository. Regardless of the presence of an installer and documentation, currently that is... not clear.

[hemangjoshi37a]

Please don't put restrictions on this awesome libraries by adding licenses, just let the people enjoy. https://hjlabs.in

[stefnotch]

@hemangjoshi37a There is a major restriction on this library: It's owned by AUTOMATIC1111, and the only things we're allowed to do is whatever the GitHub terms of service allow us to do (viewing, forking, ...). Literally anything else is off-limits.

Licensing laws are a lot meaner than one would expect.

[hemangjoshi37a]

@hemangjoshi37a There is a major restriction on this library: It's owned by AUTOMATIC1111, and the only things we're allowed to do is whatever the GitHub terms of service allow us to do (viewing, forking, ...). Literally anything else is off-limits.

Licensing laws are a lot meaner than one would expect.

Yes I wish everything is opensource without license. License takes the soul out of the opensource code. I have many repositories without licenses. I can not control what others do but atleast I can do what I believe in.

[RubinRomantic]

License takes the soul out of the opensource code.

This sentence is wrong on so many levels. I will try to explain it, but please please please, do some of your own research on how open source works from a legal standpoint.

You seem to be under the impression, that adding a License to the repository adds restrictions to it. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. A license is "an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something" (that's the literal definition of the word).

The reason, why open source projects MUST explicitly add some kind of license is because without a license ANY CODE YOU HAVE WRITTEN IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. This is so important, that I am going to say it twice. If you wrote some code in your spare time and published that code without attaching a license to it, then you are the SOLE OWNER of copyright for that code and NOBODY ELSE is allowed to do anything with that code. For this to happen, you don't need to patent that code, you don't need to explicitly declare that you own that code. No, you AUTOMATICALLY become the copyright owner of the code simply by virtue of being the AUTHOR of that code.

By adding a LICENSE file to the repository, you are GIVING OTHER PEOPLE PERMISSION to use your code. There are a lot of different open source licenses. Some are more permissive (i.e. you can do anything you want with this code), some are less permissive (i.e. if you make further modifications of this code, you must also make them publicly available), but the most important thing to understand is that "NO LICENSE" doesn't mean "NO RESTRICTIONS". "NO LICENSE" means "NOBODY EXCEPT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR IS ALLOWED TO VIEW/USE/MODIFY/DISTRIBUTE THIS CODE".

And before you ask, no a comment from the author somewhere saying that "you can just use his code", is not (legally speaking) sufficient. I am not a lawyer, but I really really doubt, that "but the author said something in a comment" will work in court.

[ClashSAN]

looks like this project now has licenses. @AUTOMATIC1111 has found the time to add them. 82cfc22

[lrq3000]

@ClashSAN: No that is very insufficient: AUTOMATIC1111 only added mentions of licenses of libraries and code snippets that were borrowed from other projects. This is the bare minimum for him not to get sued by these other projects. But he still did not assign a license to the code that was contributed to the web-ui (ie, the present repo) and not borrowed from other projects.

As a developer of open-source projects since two decades, I can't overstate how the current situation is very very very bad. Currently, this repo doesn't even belong to AUTOMATIC1111: anyone who contributed anything that was merged in the repo can take legal action to take it down. That's what you get when there is no license. It does NOT even belong to AUTOMATIC1111 anymore, because lots of parts belong to many different people.

So @AUTOMATIC1111, even if you want to retain copyright/ownership of the project, it IS in your best interest to assign a license as soon as possible. Legally speaking in fact it may not even be possible anymore, because you need to ask every contributors whether they are fine with the newly chosen license, but at least if you set a License, ping all contributors and give them reasonable time to react, it could be a legally reasonable argument that they accepted the license (or you can always unmerge their contributions at a later point, but I expect most contributors if not all will accept the new license either implicitly or explicitly).

So for the immature ones (sorry but it's pretty clear a lot of the commenters here are young and inexperienced in software development), your "fun" can stop at any moment because of a lack of license. Adding a license is the only way to ensure the "fun" is perpetuated. That's the whole purpose of open-source licenses.

[endomorphosis]

@ClashSAN I agree with @lrq3000 regarding all of this. The only thing to add is that there are a lot of "crypto-anarchist" types, and these are the types of people who disregard the utility of laws / copyright as an axiom, and they do not care about the consequences because they seem remote / a fantasy, given the amount of online copyright infringement and / or their country of domicile.

[lrq3000]

@endomorphosis Yes but the people who are not seeing the value of adding a License are not crypto-anarchists. Crypto-anarchists and cypherpunks on the contrary either use licenses or implement technological means to ensure they can continue to freely work on their projects or even ensure that their projects can continue working despite any attempts to bring them down (typicall Bitcoin, but the tradition goes a long time in the past with other means). The whataboutist commenters above propose no solution, they are just waiting for the sky to fall on them, and they will act surprised when it will happen. At anytime, any work on this codebase can be banned from ALL platforms in most countries in the world. That's the very real risk a lack of a license brings.

[lrq3000]

Addendum: Naysayers might counter-argue that there will always be ways to share it via illegal means. That's true. But how many competent contributors, ie coders and IA researchers, will then be willing to spend their time to contribute to an illegal project, that can not only be again taken down and hence making them lose their time trying to contribute, and more worryingly make them run legal risks?

Personally, as a long-time open-source coder and IA researcher, I won't bother to ever contribute to this codebase until there is a proper license. And I'm sure as hell that it's not the whataboutists above who will contribute.

[leohu1]

@AUTOMATIC1111 Please add a license.It's important!

[nathanleclaire]

+1 on adding a license. It will help encourage contributions and sharing in the community.

[hentailord85ez]

🎉

[lrq3000]

Awesome, it's now licensed under AGPL v3 since this commit, thank you so much @AUTOMATIC1111 for listening to the community and taking the time to tackle this issue!