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. kloud · 1789916950 · focus · HN ↗
  Calling open-weights as open-source in marketing materials is the usual misrepresentation. But now with the restriction on commercial use (which is against opensource definition) it is not even open-weights, technically it would be more accurate to call it weights-available.
  1. NewJazz · 1789923805 · focus · HN ↗
    And the only reason source available had any significance is that you could look at something and understand it. Weights are much much more opaque.
    It's just freeware.
    j-bos · 1789948918 · focus · HN ↗
    Though weights can be finetuned and quantized.
    NewJazz · 1789949157 · focus · HN ↗
    Is it legal in this case?
    mathfailure · 1790020361 · focus · HN ↗
    Who cares?
    NewJazz · 1790095348 · focus · HN ↗
    Salivating IP lawyers. There's already blood in the water.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.