License conflict with Readme?

[imperator-maximus]

Hello,

the main license is MIT but at the end of the Readme there was this part added three days ago:

"The SUPIR ("Software") is made available for use, reproduction, and distribution strictly for non-commercial purposes. For the purposes of this declaration, "non-commercial" is defined as not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation."

In my opinion this stands in direct conflict with the MIT license.

[fakerybakery]

I concur. In addition, it says:

This declaration does not in any way limit the rights under any open source license that may apply to the Software; it solely adds a condition that the Software shall not be used for commercial purposes.

However, this means that this code is no longer open-sourced, since NC doesn't comply with the OSD.

[Shadetail]

I would also like clarification on this.

[d8ahazard]

@Shadetail @fakerybakery @imperator-maximus

I'm not going to completely repeat myself, but if you read here #71 - the statement in the readme is pointless.

MIT means "Use it for whatever you want.". You can't change the license after it's been released.

[imperator-maximus]

@d8ahazard are you a specialized lawyer on this topic?
If not nobody really knows. The original author could say that MIT was a mistake and it is non commercial. But I agree that would mean removing MIT license file as well.
Best would be some official clarification from repo owners here.

Maybe original code until that commit is MIT and after that new commits are now. That would not make sense but who knows.

[fakerybakery]

@Shadetail @fakerybakery @imperator-maximus

I'm not going to completely repeat myself, but if you read here #71 - the statement in the readme is pointless.

MIT means "Use it for whatever you want.". You can't change the license after it's been released.

You’re right about the permissiveness of the MIT license but if the author overrides it in the README it’s unclear which one applies. (IANAL). In fact, many AI projects on GitHub are MIT licensed but have this NC clause. I think the author’s intent is for it not to be used commercially

[d8ahazard]

@Shadetail @fakerybakery @imperator-maximus
I'm not going to completely repeat myself, but if you read here #71 - the statement in the readme is pointless.
MIT means "Use it for whatever you want.". You can't change the license after it's been released.

You’re right about the permissiveness of the MIT license but if the author overrides it in the README it’s unclear which one applies. (IANAL). In fact, many AI projects on GitHub are MIT licensed but have this NC clause. I think the author’s intent is for it not to be used commercially

It's pretty straightforward. The license wins. That's how it was originally released.

While it is confusing, the license was first, and the terms of the MIT license are absolutely clear.

@imperator-maximus - I am not a lawyer. But the the org I work for has them, and after consultation, that's the outcome.

As I said, not trying to be nasty, I just want to help get this clarified for everybody involved...

[fakerybakery]

Even if the license was first, all modifications made after the NC clause was added are NC, no?

[d8ahazard]

Even if the license was first, all modifications made after the NC clause was added are NC, no?

No, because the license is still MIT. Short of pulling the code and re-releasing it under a NC license, everything in this repository falls under the MIT license.

[d8ahazard]

It's like buying a piece of property that's zoned as commercial, and then putting up a sign in front that says "This is now a residentially zoned area." and expecting to not get in trouble for building condos on it. Or something like that.

[imperator-maximus]

I disagree here because the timeframe between the first release and the README was quite short (only a few days). It wasn't as if months had passed. In this case, choosing the MIT license might have been an oversight.
Take another example: if someone were to steal Windows' closed-source code and release it on GitHub under an MIT license, everyone would agree that it wouldn't actually be MIT-licensed code. It's important to consider the full context. I'm not sure of the relationship between the repository creator and the original authors of the paper. Perhaps the person intended to assist by contributing some code and uploading everything here, but didn't have complete permission to apply the MIT license.
In such a scenario—and this is purely speculative—you can't simply claim it's under the MIT license. Only the copyright owner has the authority to determine the licensing, and no one else.

[d8ahazard]

But it's not someone else's code. It's the author's original project. The original license for this original code we're discussing is MIT.

And the timeframe is irrelevant. The license on this project still says MIT. Intent, oversights, whatever don't have any bearing on the fact of what the license is.

I get your point. I get all of the points surrounding the ambiguity of this issue. And for those reasons, it's imperative that OP either release new code with a new license, which is likely a moot point by now - or remove the conflicting and irrelevant statement from the readme.

But as it is now, there's not a ton of ground for anybody upset that it's being used commercially...

[d8ahazard]

LOL, so the solution is to just change the existing license?

Good thing the version I forked was released under MIT, hey?

[fakerybakery]

I think the NC still applies to forked code since it was in the readme before they switched to a dedicated NC license