Thread

Qwen Image 2.1

740 points · 199 comments · jmillikin

jfoster · 1789913791 · focus · HN ↗
A lot of the previous Qwen models seem to have used Apache licenses, among others:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwen#List_of_models" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwen#List_of_models
Unfortunately, it looks like this model is using a much more restrictive license:
<a href="https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen-Image-2.1/blob/main/LICENSE" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen-Image-2.1/blob/main/LICENSE
1. unrented7977 · 1789915980 · focus · HN ↗
  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.
  1. JaggerJo · 1789917511 · focus · HN ↗
    Agreed.
  2. user43928 · 1789917820 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    Tanjreeve · 1789918953 · focus · HN ↗
    That seems quite important. Definitely requires any grown up company to have to do a bunch of legal paperwork to use it.
    soulofmischief · 1789919073 · focus · HN ↗
    It could have an attempt at steganographic watermarking trained into the model.
    iwontberude · 1789922051 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    CamperBob2 · 1789922012 · focus · HN ↗
    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?
    KeplerBoy · 1789922410 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes? If you deploy the model and provide it on Openrouter (or elsewhere) you better have a license.
    CamperBob2 · 1789922541 · focus · HN ↗
    No need to deploy it publicly. It's 7B, it'll run on a 3090.
    KeplerBoy · 1789922799 · focus · HN ↗
    You talked about commercially deploying it. Of course nobody cares what you are doing on your own hardware for fun.
    CamperBob2 · 1789923237 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    nozzlegear · 1789927124 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    finnjohnsen2 · 1789990923 · focus · HN ↗
    yes, but it uses 17gb VRAM when running a 50 inference steps generation from prompt. Which is more than I expected since a 7B model sounds little.
    bdonlan · 1789936936 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    johnnyApplePRNG · 1789975348 · focus · HN ↗
    It's called a transformative work. And it is indeed copyrightable or it's able to be protected legally, if that's what you're wondering?
    KeplerBoy · 1789995091 · focus · HN ↗
    True, but my pockets aren't deep enough to be the one who wants to figure that out in court.
  3. soulofmischief · 1789919000 · focus · HN ↗
    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?
    dannyw · 1789921636 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    soulofmischief · 1790090972 · focus · HN ↗
    I meant in a broader sense that any model ingesting GPL content would be subject to GPL licensing. The problem is that training and copying/integrating are not the same thing, and this is actually a very complex issue to unpack.
  4. urbnspacecowboy · 1789937390 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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?
    kouteiheika · 1789956995 · focus · HN ↗
    > GPL is not a "use it however the fuck I want" license. Maybe you're thinking of the WTFPL?
    No. GPL is a "use it however the fuck you want" license. The GPL has no restrictions on *use*, only on redistribution.
    a96 · 1789978010 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, having no restrictions on use is the first and most critical software freedom. The others are there more to help protect the first (IMO). GPL in particular tries to reach quite far to protect all of them.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.