License?

[SorraTheOrc]

Please add an appropriate open source license to allow others to use and build upon your excellent work. For example, https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

[krupalitrivedi]

Please add an internal link to License by making a heading at the bottom of the ReadMe so it is easy for the users to simply click and move to the License page.

[AUTOMATIC1111]

I'm going to pick GNU Affero.

[JohannesGaessler]

@AUTOMATIC1111 Did you change your mind? I don't see anything referring to the AGPL license in the repository.

[AUTOMATIC1111]

Yeah I decided to delay adding license.

[JohannesGaessler]

Please be aware that not having a license could theoretically allow people to copyright troll you.
Strictly speaking this repository already contains some of my intellectual property since you merged some of my code.
If my understanding of copyright law is correct I could now add stipulations for how this code can be used which would affect the repository as a whole.
(The risk of something like this happening is extremely small though.)

[ReinerBforartists]

Isn't the same license as for SD required when you use SD code? Depends of course, GPL is definitely toxic. I don't know what SD uses at the moment. Also, you use the Gradio code for the webpage part. So these two licenses should at least be mentioned already.

Licensing is a very special mine field ...

[JohannesGaessler]

gradio is licensed under Apache 2.0 so it should not cause problems.

With Stable Diffusion itself I'd have to check the exact wording because licenses typically differentiate between distribution and linking.
For instance, LGPL allows linking with proprietary software while GPL does not (if I remember correctly).

[JohannesGaessler]

From the Stable Diffusion LICENSE on Github:

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions - respecting paragraph 4.a. - for use, reproduction, or Distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivatives of the Model as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and Distribution of the Model otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

If my understanding is correct you can basically choose any license for SD code as long as you also include the restrictions for e.g. defamation or harmful content.

[ReinerBforartists]

It's not this easy, unfortunately. You cannot simply put the gradio code under gpl for example. It is Apache license, and must remain under Apache license.

But i think i have misunderstood you here anyways. What you most probably mean is the software that uses gradio and SD can use any licensing, as long as it complies with Apache and the inhouse license of SD. What you need to do though is to include the Apache and inhouse license into the software. And mention that some code parts are under this and that license.

Means, stable diffusion webui can for example use a MIT license for the stable diffusion webui part. And then include the Apache license and the SD inhouse license too, and mention that code parts are from SD and Gradio, under this and that license. A few lines and the license texst in the root should do that.

Have a look at bigger projects like Blender for example, and how they deal with it. They use several different code parts with different licensing in their project. The crucial part is that the licenses must be compliant to each other. And as told, beware of the GPL, it is toxic. You introduce potential trouble with this license.

[JohannesGaessler]

And as told, beware of the GPL, it is toxic.

I would prefer a copyleft license though.

[ReinerBforartists]

Agreed. But there is plenty better copyleft licences available nowadays. It is really limiting.

In the end it's the decision of Automattic :)

[CapableWeb]

@dfaker any information about why this was closed? Tried to find LICENSE/license/LICENSE.md in this repository but nothing. Also didn't find any other issues asking about the license nor the word "license" mentioned anywhere in any file in the repository.

Seems it is still missing a license which effectively means it's under @AUTOMATIC1111's copyright

[ReinerBforartists]

Indeed. And this would mean that every fork is currently illegal :)

[CapableWeb]

Indeed. And this would mean that every fork is currently illegal :)

No, not really. By uploading content on GitHub you implicitly allow any GitHub user to use/display/reproduce the content on GitHub itself, no matter what license you attach to the project, even if proprietary. This is part of the GitHub Terms of Service :)

However, if you do add a license, you can add further rights to projects. Which would be very nice in this case.

[ReinerBforartists]

Well, you can fork it, but without a license you are not allowed to use it then. Since the complete copyright is still in hands of Automatic

Anyways. A proper license would be really handy :)

[CapableWeb]

Well, you can fork it, but without a license you are not allowed to use it then. Since the complete copyright is still in hands of Automatic

Again, not true. The full terms are outlined in the Terms of Service for GitHub, I suggest you give it a read :) One relevant part:

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

And also, copyright does not regard private usage of anything but redistribution/commercial usage. So you'd be safe to use anything you come across GitHub regardless, for your own usage.

Anyways. A proper license would be really handy :)

Agreed :)

[ReinerBforartists]

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content

Yeah, but this does not play well together with copyright. Either way, i am no lawyer :)

EDIT, did some further research:

https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository

Licensing a repository
Public repositories on GitHub are often used to share open source software. For your repository to truly be open source, you'll need to license it so that others are free to use, change, and distribute the software.

https://opensource.guide/legal/

Making your GitHub project public is not the same as licensing your project. Public projects are covered by GitHub’s Terms of Service, which allows others to view and fork your project, but your work otherwise comes with no permissions.

[SorraTheOrc]

The GitHub ToC are sufficient to protect GitHub. Not downstream users who are responsible for their own legal use of code.

My personal rule is that if it doesn't have a License don't use it or contribute to it. Others can choose to follow or not. There are plenty of other good UI's for Stable Diffusion.

[cmp-nct]

The GitHub ToC are sufficient to protect GitHub. Not downstream users who are responsible for their own legal use of code.

My personal rule is that if it doesn't have a License don't use it or contribute to it. Others can choose to follow or not. There are plenty of other good UI's for Stable Diffusion.

It's quite bad for the author(s) as well, because anyone who contributed to it has copyright on his work.
So it is already quite a mix.
If the license is clear early on then everyone contributes to a common license, if the license is not defined it's a big mess.
A quite open license is the only solution now, MIT or BSD licenses for example.
This can be combined with copyright on certain parts and images to protect the project somewhat.

[ReinerBforartists]

Friends, this task is closed. I doubt that anything will happen here anymore.

[CapableWeb]

@ReinerBforartists yeah, it's been "closed" but the question is why? There is still no license for the repository, so the situation is still unclear. If @AUTOMATIC1111 want to be "protected" as in they own the code, a proper Copyright notice should be added, if Automatic want it to be proper FOSS, a FOSS license should be added.

As it stands right now, it seems @dfaker closed it for no reason...